The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ERIN MOOERS,
Plaintiff, No. 6:23-cv-01294-MC
v. OPINION AND ORDER
ST. CHARLES HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Plaintiff Erin Mooers brings religious discrimination and hostile work environment
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Oregon law against her former employer,
Defendant St. Charles Health System, Inc. (“St. Charles”). Defendant moves to dismiss
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, arguing she failed to plead the necessary factual
allegations to support a claim for unlawful harassment. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 5–6, ECF No. 7.
For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND1
In August 2021, the Oregon Health Authority issued an administrative rule (“the
mandate”) that required healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Def.’s Mot. 2.
The mandate permitted healthcare employers to grant religious exemptions and accommodations
to employees upon request. Def.’s Mot. 2. In accordance with the mandate, Defendant required
employees to become vaccinated but allowed employees to apply for religious exemptions.
Compl. ¶ 11.
1 At the motion to dismiss stage, this Court takes all of Plaintiff’s allegations as true. See Burget v. Lokelani Bernice
Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff had worked at the St. Charles Anticoagulation Clinic as a Licensed Practical
Nurse and a Manager of Clinical Operations for four years. Compl. ¶ 5. Following the mandate,
Plaintiff alleges that “Many patients and other hospital staff were extremely negative towards
those who were not vaccinated, and the entire hospital became a two-sided hostile environment.”
Id. ¶ 12.
As a “devout Christian,” Plaintiff objected to the COVID-19 vaccine based on her belief
that “her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that her body is not hers but God’s,” requiring
her to “protect[] the physical integrity of her body against unclean food, harmful drugs, and
injections.” Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff applied for a religious exemption in September 2021, which
Defendant granted. Id. Following the grant of her religious exemption, Defendant placed
Plaintiff on unpaid administrative leave. Id. Defendant ultimately terminated Plaintiff’s
employment for failure to comply with the vaccine mandate. Id.; Def.’s Mot. 2–3.
STANDARDS
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter that “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual
allegations allow the court to infer the defendant’s liability based on the alleged conduct.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The factual allegations must present more than “the
mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 678.
When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations of material
fact as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Burgert v.
Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Tr., 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000). But the court is “not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. If the complaint is dismissed, leave to amend should be granted unless “the pleading could
not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497
(9th Cir. 1995).
DISCUSSION
Claims brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.030(1)(a)
are analyzed under the same framework. Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Med. Ctr., No. 22-cv-01306,
2022 WL 19977290, slip op. at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 20, 2022). To prevail on a hostile work
environment claim based on religion, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she was subjected to verbal
or physical conduct of a religious nature; (2) the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) the conduct
was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment and
create an abusive work environment. Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th
Cir. 2003). To determine whether conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive, courts consider
the totality of the circumstances, “including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its
severity; whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and
whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id. (quoting Clark
Co. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 270-71 (2001)).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to plead a prima facie case of a hostile work
environment. Def.’s Mot. 4–5. Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim rests entirely on one
paragraph:
Prior to her placement on unpaid leave, Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work
environment. Many patients and other hospital staff were extremely negative towards
those who were not vaccinated, and the entire hospital became a two-sided hostile
environment.
Compl. ¶ 12.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails on the first and third prongs.2 Def.’s Mot. 5. The first
prong of a hostile work environment claim requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that she was
subjected to verbal or physical conduct because of her religion. Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642.
Plaintiff’s allegation of experiencing “extreme[] negativ[ity] towards those who were not
vaccinated” establishes no connection between her religion and the alleged hostile work
environment. Compl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff objected to the COVID-19 vaccination because as a “devout
Christian,” “her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,” and she must “glorify God by protecting
the physical integrity of her body against unclean food, harmful drugs, and injections.” Compl. ¶
11. However, “unvaccinated status alone does not establish any connotation of religious
affiliation.” Brown v. NW Permanente, P.C., No. 3:22-CV-986-SI, 2023 WL 6147178, at *6 (D.
Or. Sept. 20, 2023). Plaintiff’s allegation does not satisfy the first prong.
Similarly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff falls short on the third prong. Def.’s Mot. 6.
The third prong requires a plaintiff to show that the conduct was so severe or pervasive that it
“alter[ed] the conditions” of Plaintiff’s employment. Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642. To satisfy this
prong, Plaintiff generally alleges that “patients and hospital staff were extremely negative
towards those who were not vaccinated” (alleging severe conduct), and “the entire hospital
became a two-sided hostile environment” (alleging pervasive conduct). Compl. ¶ 12; Pl.’s Resp.
7–8, ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s allegation is a conclusory statement, not a factual allegation, and a
plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Additionally, even assuming “other
hospital staff were extremely negative towards those who were not vaccinated,” this conduct is a
far cry from conduct which might establish a hostile work environment. See Torres v. Nat’l
Frozen Foods Corp., No. 6:20-CV-01680-MC, 2021 WL 1740245 at *4 (D. Or. May 3, 2021)
2 Defendant does not challenge the second prong; i.e., that the conduct was unwelcome.
(noting Ninth Circuit in Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104, 1105-06 (1998) found
plausible hostile work environment “where the plaintiff was explicitly targeted by a supervisor
who, over two years, harassed her every day, making comments about the plaintiff’s ‘ass,’ telling
her his sexual fantasies involving her, getting behind her and making crude insinuations, and
making multiple sexual comments directed at the plaintiff over the loudspeaker where they
worked.”); see also Lanyon v. Interfor U.S. Inc., No. 1:16-CV-2058, 2018 WL 1976023 at * 6
(finding plausible hostile work environment when employee alleged supervisor: “repeatedly
attempted to grab [Plaintiff’s] genitals; “physically threatened” the Plaintiff; and “repeatedly
threatened to rape and sodomize” the Plaintiff.). Because Plaintiff failed to plead any specific
facts in support of her allegation, her hostile work environment claim fails.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. If
Plaintiff believes it can plead sufficient facts to support the claim, Plaintiff is granted 14 days to
file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of February, 2024.
_____/s/ Michael McShane______
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge