# ROBINSON

> District Court, M.D. North Carolina · December 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11228675

## Case

- **Full name:** Alvin D. Robinson v. Guilford County Sheriff’s Office, and Danny H. Rogers, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Guilford County
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** December 19, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11228675

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the non-moving party has the right to file counter affidavits or pursue reasonable discovery

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

ALVIN D. ROBINSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 1:23-cv-87
)
GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
OFFICE, and DANNY H. ROGERS, )
individually and in his )
capacity as Sheriff of Guilford )
County, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
OSTEEN, JR., District Judge
Before this court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc.
16), treated as a motion summary judgment following the
Magistrate Judge’s order, (Doc. 21). Defendants have filed a
brief in support of their motion to dismiss, (Doc. 17), and a
supplemental brief responding to the order, (Doc. 25). Plaintiff
has responded to the motion and order, (Doc. 29), and Defendants
have replied, (Doc. 30). For the reasons stated herein,
Defendants’ motion will be granted.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are construed in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff and are uncontested unless otherwise
noted. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
Pro se Plaintiff Alvin D. Robinson was employed by
Defendant Guilford County Sheriff’s Office (“GCSO”) as a part-
time Deputy Sheriff when GCSO announced a COVID-19 Testing
Disciplinary Policy and Procedure (“Testing Policy”), (Defs.’
Pol’y (Doc. 17-1)), effective October 28, 2021. (Compl. (Doc. 2)
at ¶¶ 4–5.) The Testing Policy stated that “the Sheriff’s Office
is not mandating vaccinations for its employees.” (Defs.’ Pol’y
(Doc. 17-1) at 4 (emphasis in original).) 1 Instead, it
established that “employees who choose not to be vaccinated,

however, are required to be tested for COVID-19 on a weekly
basis.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) The Testing Policy also
announced that “[r]eligious and medical exemptions are generally
not applicable to the mandatory testing requirement.” (Id.)
Plaintiff objected to the Testing Policy “based upon his
sincerely held religious beliefs” and informed GCSO that “[i]t
is a sin against my God-given conscience to allow unwanted
intrusions into, extractions from, and restrictions to my body
which is the temple of the Holy Spirit.” (Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶ 6.)
Corresponding with GCSO, Plaintiff stated “I am requesting that
the reasonable accommodations be that I be allowed to continue

1 All citations in this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
documents filed with this court refer to the page numbers
located at the bottom right-hand corner of the documents as they
appear on CM/ECF.
to report to work at Guilford County Sheriff’s Office . . .
without any disciplinary actions related to the Guilford County
COVID-19 testing policy.” (Pl.’s Correspondence Nov. 17, 2021
(Doc. 17-2).)2
Responding to Plaintiff’s request, GCSO Legal Advisor James
Secor informed Plaintiff that “[w]e do not accept your logic on
this issue. Hence, the masking requirement will stand.” (Defs.’
Correspondence Nov. 18, 2021 (Doc. 17-2).) Further, Secor stated
that “[y]our refusal to comply with the much less intrusive

requirements for weekly testing and mask wearing put other
employees, and the public we serve, at a greater health risk.
That increased risk is, without doubt, ‘an undue burden’.” (Id.)
Thus, Plaintiff was instructed to “comply with the Sheriff’s
requirements for weekly testing and masking.” (Id.)
On the same day, Plaintiff received a “Non-disciplinary
Letter of Performance Counseling” signed by GCSO Captain D. R.
Pruitt. (Defs.’ Letter Nov. 18, 2021 (Doc. 17-3).) This letter

2 In his complaint, Plaintiff similarly stated that he
“requested therein that defendant GCSO accommodate his religious
beliefs by allowing him to continue to work as he had been prior
to implementation of the Policy on grounds that allowing him to
do so would not pose an undue hardship to defendant.” (Compl.
(Doc. 2) ¶ 6). Therefore, while Plaintiff later stated that he
“included a list of reasonable accommodations for my exempt
status,” (Pl. Correspondence Nov. 30, 2021 (Doc. 17-4)), this
court finds that until November 30, 2021, Plaintiff had only
requested that he be permitted to work without being subject to
the testing requirement.
stated that Plaintiff had not been in compliance with the
Testing Policy and further noncompliance “will result in the
next step in the disciplinary process.” (Id.) Later that month,
Plaintiff met with Defendant GCSO Sheriff Danny Rogers. (Compl.
(Doc. 2) ¶ 9.) During this meeting, “Sheriff Rogers told
[P]laintiff that he did not want to have to let [P]laintiff go
because [P]laintiff was a good employee,” but “later that day”
Plaintiff was “suspended from duty without pay . . . for
violating the Policy.” (Id.)

Plaintiff then “attempted to appeal his suspension through
an email” to Secor. (Id. ¶ 10.) In this email, Plaintiff stated
that his previously correspondence had “included a list of
reasonable accommodations for my exempt status.” (Pl.’s
Correspondence Nov. 30, 2021 (Doc. 17-4) at 1.) After restating
his religious objections, Plaintiff then explained that “if I
were to exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, I am not opposed to getting
tested to confirm illness at that time.” (Id. at 3.) Moreover,
Plaintiff indicated that he was “not opposed to wearing a mask
when I am acting as a medical first responder in my law
enforcement capacity.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff maintained that
“mask wearing outside of the aforementioned emergency

circumstances and weekly COVID-19 testing is the government
imposing a different religious practice (daily and weekly
rituals) on me which goes against my sincerely held religious
beliefs.” (Id.)
On December 3, 2021, Secor responded to Plaintiff’s email
stating that “there is no legal or factual basis for reversing
[GCSO’s] position on the COVID-related testing and mask-wearing
mandates.” (Defs.’ Correspondence Dec. 3, 2021 (Doc. 17-5) at
1.) The letter agreed that religious beliefs must be interpreted
“broadly,” but also maintained that religious freedom objections
are not “limitless.” (Id.) The letter identified “evidence that

you, in the past, have behaved in manners inconsistent with your
stated belief.” (Id. at 2.) The letter also explained that “the
business necessity of the GCSO’s mandatory testing and mask
wearing requirement is manifest” because employees “engage in
close, personal contact with the public and other agency
employees.” (Id.) As such, Plaintiff “cannot perform those
specific duties remotely from a laptop at home nor can [he]
perform those duties safely if the GCSO capitulates to [his]
request to reject weekly COVID testing and daily mask wearing.”
(Id.) (emphasis in original).
After Plaintiff “continued to refuse to submit to weekly
testing,” (Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶ 12) GCSO First Lieutenant E.M. Cox

sent Plaintiff a “Statement of Charges and Recommended
Discipline” that recommended termination. (Id.) Plaintiff
appealed this recommendation and articulated “that the
scriptural authority upon which he relied was Romans 14:23b:
‘For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.’” (Id. ¶ 13.)
Sheriff Rogers denied the appeal on December 13, 2021, and
“upheld the termination of [P]laintiff’s employment for failure
to abide by the mandatory testing requirement.” (Id. ¶ 15.)
Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants GCSO and
Sheriff Danny H. Rogers in his individual capacity and official
capacity as Sheriff of Guilford County. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff

asserts Title VII claims for religious discrimination in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (id. ¶¶ 25–33), and 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claims for violations of the Free Exercise Clause,
(id. ¶¶ 34–40).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on December 31, 2021.
(EEOC Charge (Doc. 2-1) at 1–4.) Plaintiff received his right to
sue letter on October 22, 2022. (EEOC Right to Sue (Doc. 2-1) at
6–9.) Plaintiff then filed his complaint on January 30, 2023.3
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Mot. to Dismiss (Doc.
16).) On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff had not responded to
Defendants’ motion, and the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff
to file a Notice of Intent to Proceed. (Order (Doc. 21) at 1.)
The order also recognized that Defendants “attached various
documents, some of which may be outside the pleadings.” (Id.)

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge determined that under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), Defendants’ motion will be
treated as one for summary judgment. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff
then timely informed this court of his intent to proceed. (Pl.’s
Notice of Intent to Proceed (Doc. 22).) Because the order

3 Plaintiff attached both his EEOC charge and right to sue
letter to his complaint. (See Doc. 2-1.) While it appears that
Plaintiff may have filed his complaint more than 90 days after
receiving the letter, see Davis v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 180
F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 1999), Plaintiff did not identify whether he
received his letter by mail or email and this court cannot
determine the form of Plaintiff’s correspondence. Using the
established Fourth Circuit presumption that Plaintiff received
the mailed notice within three days of the letter’s issuance,
see Crabill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 423 F. App’x
314, 321 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished table decision), Plaintiff
has timely filed his complaint. Moreover, Defendants do not
challenge Plaintiff’s timeliness and agree that the complaint
was timely filed because the deadline to file was a Saturday,
thus permitting Plaintiff to file by January 30th. (Defs.’ Br.
in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 17) at 1 n.1.) Therefore, this
court determines that Plaintiff has timely filed his complaint.
treating the motion as one for summary judgment permitted the
parties to “present any additional material,” (Order (Doc. 21)
at 1–2), Defendants filed supplemental briefing to support the
motion, (Defs.’ Suppl. Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Compl.
and/or Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Suppl. Br.”) (Doc. 25)).
Plaintiff then responded to Defendants’ motion, (Pl.’s
Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Resp.”) (Doc. 29)). In
this response, Plaintiff addressed three statements from
Defendants. (See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29) at 1–6; Br. in Supp. of

Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Compl. (“Defs.’ Br.”) (Doc. 17).)
Plaintiff also stated that “pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Plaintiff “moves for the
Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of this action against all
defendants under the condition that the Court would grant me one
(1) year from the date of the entry of the Court’s order to
refile my action against all defendants.” (Pl’s Resp. (Doc. 29)
at 7. (emphasis in original).) Defendants replied to Plaintiff’s
response. (Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Compl.
(“Defs.’ Reply”) (Doc. 30).) Defendants “strenuously oppose[d]”
Plaintiff’s request, arguing that it was both procedurally
defective and lacking substantive basis to dismiss without

prejudice. (Id. at 6–7.)
Defendants’ motion is ripe and ready for ruling. A hearing
is not necessary to resolve the motion.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), courts
have discretion to convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for
summary judgment. Finley Lines Joint Protective Bd. Unit 200 v.
Norfolk S. Corp., 109 F.3d 993, 996 (4th Cir. 1997). A motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is not converted into a motion
for summary judgment by the mere submission or service of

extraneous materials. Id. (considering issue in context of
voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)). However, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, if “matters outside
the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court,
the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under
Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). If the court opts to convert
the motion, “[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable
opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the
motion.” Id.; see Gay v. Wall, 761 F.2d 175, 177 (4th Cir. 1985)
(holding that the non-moving party has the right to file counter
affidavits or pursue reasonable discovery). Generally, parties
are on notice of a potential Rule 12(d) conversion if they are

aware that materials outside the pleadings are before the court.
Gay, 761 F.2d at 177.
Here, all parties were notified of the potential
conversion. The Magistrate Judge’s order gave notice to all
parties of the intent to convert the motion and then provided
the opportunity to present additional information pertinent to
the motion. (Order (Doc. 21) at 2.) Both Plaintiff and
Defendants filed responsive pleadings after receiving this
order, (see Defs.’ Suppl. Br. (Doc. 25); Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29);
Defs.’ Reply (Doc. 30)). Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants
objected to converting the motion. As a result, this court finds

that conversion is appropriate and that the issues before the
court may be decided based upon the pleadings and evidence
submitted. See Bullock v. United States, 176 F. Supp. 3d 517,
522–23 (M.D.N.C. 2016).
Summary judgment is appropriate where an examination of the
pleadings, affidavits, and other proper discovery materials
before the court demonstrates that no genuine issue of material
fact exists, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The moving party bears the burden
of initially demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

If the moving party has met that burden, then the nonmoving
party must persuade the court that a genuine issue remains for
trial. This requires “more than simply show[ing] that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”; the
“nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986)
(citations omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). In
considering a motion for summary judgment, the court is not to
weigh the evidence, but rather must determine whether there is a
genuine dispute as to a material issue. Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
Nonetheless, the court must ensure that the facts it
considers can be “presented in a form that would be admissible
in evidence” and that any affidavits or evidence used to support
or oppose a motion are “made on personal knowledge, set out
facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the
affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters
stated.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), (4).
The court must view the facts in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party, drawing inferences favorable to that
party if such inferences are reasonable. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
255. However, there must be more than a factual dispute, the

fact in question must be material, and the dispute must be
genuine. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A
dispute is only “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
When a party is proceeding pro se, his filings are “to be
liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
However, the principles calling for “special judicial

solicitude” in viewing pro se filings “do[] not transform the
court into an advocate.” United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789,
797 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1278 (4th Cir. 1985). If the non-movant fails to meet his
burden, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at
322.
IV. ANALYSIS
In his complaint, Plaintiff names as defendants the
Guilford County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Rogers in both his
individual and official capacities. (Compl. (Doc. 2).) As an
initial matter, this court agrees with Defendants that GSCO

lacks the capacity to be sued as an entity. (Defs.’ Br. (Doc.
17) at 6–7.) As a governmental agency, state law determines a
sheriff’s office capacity to be sued. Efird v. Riley, 342 F.
Supp. 2d 413, 419–20 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (citing Avery v. Burke
Cnty., 660 F.2d 111, 113–14 (4th Cir. 1981)). The Fourth Circuit
has held that “[u]nder North Carolina law, police departments
cannot be sued as entities.” Smith v. Munday, 848 F.3d 248, 256–
57 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion as to
Plaintiff’s claims against GCSO as an entity will be granted,
and GCSO will be dismissed as a Defendant.
This court next addresses Sheriff Rogers as a Defendant in

his individual and official capacities. (Compl. (Doc. 2).)
Because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, this court
liberally construes Plaintiff’s pleadings to assert the
following: (1) a Title VII claim against Sheriff Rogers, in his
official capacity as Plaintiff’s employer, for failing to grant
Plaintiff’s religious accommodation,4 (2) a § 1983 claim against
Sheriff Rogers in his individual capacity for violating
Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights established by the Free
Exercise Clause,5 and (3) a municipal liability claim against

4 Title VII does not permit suits against supervisors in
their individual capacities. See Lissau v. S. Food Serv., Inc.,
159 F.3d 177, 180 (4th Cir. 1998). However, “in North Carolina,
each county’s sheriff is an ‘employer’ within the meaning of
Title VII and must be named as a defendant in a Title VII suit.”
Efird v. Riley, 342 F. Supp. 2d 413, 420 (M.D.N.C. 2004); see
also Parker v. Bladen Cnty., 583 F. Supp. 2d 736, 739 (E.D.N.C.
2008) (“[U]nder North Carolina law, a sheriff’s deputy ‘is an
employee of the sheriff, not the county.’” (quoting Clark v.
Burke Cnty., 117 N.C. App. 85, 89, 450 S.E.2d 747, 749 (1994))).
As Defendants identify, it is “well-established” that “a cause
of action may exist as to a local Sheriff in his official
capacity,” (Defs.’ Rep. (Doc. 30) at 1–2). This court agrees.
See, e.g., King v. McMillan, 594 F.3d 301, 308–09 (4th Cir.
2010) (“In sum, state law demarcations of particular offices
cannot be used to cut off the (federal) Title VII rights of
state and local employees.”). Because Plaintiff, proceeding pro
se, named Sheriff Rogers in his official capacity as a
Defendant, (Compl. (Doc. 2), this court finds that Plaintiff’s
Title VII claim may proceed against Sheriff Rogers in his
official capacity as Plaintiff’s employer.

5 Despite Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s “allegations
do not mention an individual capacity claim,” (Defs.’ Br. (Doc.
17) at 19) (citation omitted), this court finds that Plaintiff
stated his second cause of action when he contended that “the
actions of the defendants GCSO, by and through Sheriff Rogers
and its employees, were under color of law.” (Compl. (Doc. 2)
¶ 36.) Construed liberally, this court finds that Plaintiff has
stated a claim against Sheriff Rogers in his individual capacity
under § 1983 by arguing that Sheriff Rogers acted under color of
law. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985) (“On the
merits, to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it
is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state
law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.” (emphasis in
original) (citing Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961))).
Sheriff Rogers in his official capacity for implementing and
executing the Testing Policy which violated Plaintiff’s First
Amendment rights.6 This court will grant Defendants’ motion
because Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
and it will deny Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal
without prejudice.
A. Title VII
Under Title VII, an employer cannot “discharge any

individual, or otherwise . . . discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,

6 Where individual capacity suits consider an officer’s
deprivation of federal rights while acting under color of state
law, see Graham, 473 U.S. at 165, official capacity suits are
“treated as suits against the municipality.” Davison v. Randall,
912 F.3d 666, 688 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (Jan. 9, 2019)
(quoting Santos v. Frederick Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 725 F.3d 451,
469 (4th Cir. 2013)). Municipalities are liable “when its
‘policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those
whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official
policy, inflicts the [plaintiff’s] injury.’” Santos, 725 F.3d at
470 (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694
(1978)).
Plaintiff contends that the Testing Policy “forced
[P]laintiff to choose between violating his sincerely held
religious beliefs or being fired.” (Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶ 39.)
Plaintiff cited Monell in his response and argued that “local
governments and individual local government officials indeed can
be sued for federal constitutional violations resulting from
their official policies.” (Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29) at 2–3 (citing
Monell, 436 U.S. at 659).) Because Plaintiff has named Sheriff
Rogers in his official capacity as a Defendant, argued that the
Testing Policy caused his alleged injury, and cited to the
appropriate authority for municipal liability, this court
determines that Plaintiff has stated a claim for Monell
liability. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 692–94.
or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . .
religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Title VII defines religion
as “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as
belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to
reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective
employee’s religious observance or practice without undue
hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Id.
§ 2000e(j).
Courts in the Fourth Circuit “employ a burden shifting

scheme” where a plaintiff must “first establish a prima facie
claim.” E.E.O.C. v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d
307, 312 (4th Cir. 2008). To establish a prima facie claim, a
plaintiff must show that “(1) he or she has a bona fide
religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement;
(2) he or she informed the employer of this belief; and (3) he
or she was disciplined for failure to comply with the
conflicting employment requirement.” Id. (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). If established, the burden then shifts
to the employer, who must “demonstrate either (1) that it
provided the plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for his
or her religious observances or (2) that such accommodation was
not provided because it would have caused an undue hardship.”7
Id. (emphasis in original). This court finds that Defendants
could not have accommodated Plaintiff without suffering an undue

7 Title VII has different legal standards for failure to
accommodate and disparate treatment claims. See Hall v. Sheppard
Pratt Health Sys., Inc., 155 F.4th 747, 751 (4th Cir. 2025)
(explaining that “[e]mployees may sue under Title VII using
either a ‘disparate treatment’ or ‘failure to accommodate’
theory”); see also Barnett v. Inova Health Care Servs., 125
F.4th 465, 471 (describing the disparate treatment standard).
Plaintiff alleges a “failure to provide religious
accommodation.” While Plaintiff does not allege a theory of
disparate treatment, (see Compl. (Doc. 2) at 9–11), his
response stated that “[t]here was another part-time deputy at
the time who, because he was not absolutely needed to work, was
advised to not work during that same time period.” (Pl.’s Resp.
(Doc. 29) at 5.) Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff alleges
disparate treatment through a comparator, this court finds that
Plaintiff failed to establish that the comparator was similarly
situated.
To state a claim for disparate treatment, Plaintiff must
“produce evidence of particular comparators who were similarly
situated,” which can include individuals who “dealt with the
same supervisor, were subject to the same standards and . . .
engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or
mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or
the employer’s treatment of them for it.” Hall v. Sheppard Pratt
Health Sys., Inc., 749 F. Supp. 3d 532, 549 (D. Md. 2024) aff’d,
155 F.4th 747 (4th Cir. 2025) (alteration omitted) (quoting
Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219, 223–24 (4th
Cir. 2019)). Plaintiff does not identify any similarities in job
duties, tenure, responsibilities, or qualifications. Plaintiff
does not state this deputy’s religion or explain why “he was not
absolutely needed to work.” (See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29) at 5.)
Plaintiff also does not articulate Defendants’ stated reason for
advising this individual not to work. (See id.) Therefore, to
the extent Plaintiff intended to state a disparate treatment
claim, this court finds that summary judgment is appropriate.
hardship and will therefore grant summary judgment to Defendants
on Plaintiff’s Title VII claim.
i. Plaintiff’s Prima Facie Claim
When evaluating the “bona fide religious belief” element of
a prima facie claim, courts must consider whether the “belief is
(1) sincerely held and (2) religious in nature.” Barnett v.
Inova Health Care Servs., 125 F.4th 465, 470 (4th Cir. 2025)
(citing United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965)). The
“first prong” of sincerity evaluates “an adherent’s good faith

in the expression of [his] religious belief.” Id. (quoting
Patrick v. LeFevre, 745 F.2d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 1984)). This
good-faith inquiry examines whether beliefs “are held as a
matter of conscience” or “are animated by motives of deception
and fraud.” Id. (quoting Patrick, 745 F.2d at 157). The “second
prong” of religious in nature “limits” a court’s inquiry to
whether “the beliefs professed are, in the claimant’s own scheme
of things, religious.” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting Patrick, 745
F.2d at 157–58). It is not an employer’s duty, “nor ours as a
court, to questions the correctness or even the plausibility of
[a plaintiff’s] religious understandings.” E.E.O.C. v. Consol
Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 142 (4th Cir. 2017). Courts cannot

evaluate whether a plaintiff, “in seeking to protect his
religious conscience, has drawn the line in the right place.”
Id.
This court finds that genuine disputes of material fact
preclude summary judgment on the first prong of sincerity. As
recognized by the Fourth Circuit, “the inquiry into sincerity is
‘almost exclusively a credibility assessment’ and ‘can rarely be
determined on summary judgment.’” Barnett, 125 F.4th at 470
(quoting Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1219 (10th Cir. 2007)).
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged his sincere belief in the

Christian faith. As “an ordained, Christian minister,” who
worked with both GCSO and the Greensboro Fire Department,
(Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶ 4), Plaintiff asserted “that the Holy Spirit
convicted him to refuse to comply with the Policy,” (id. ¶ 13).
Plaintiff also provided “the scriptural authority upon which he
relied” to voice his objections. (Id.) At this stage, Plaintiff
has provided “sufficient evidence” to support that his “beliefs
are sincerely held” and in good faith. Consol Energy, 860 F.3d
at 142.
Beyond credibility, this court also finds that material
facts remain in dispute. Specifically, this court finds material
whether Plaintiff’s requested accommodation on November 30,

2021, differed from Plaintiff’s request on November 17, 2021,
and whether either request deviated from pre-Testing Policy
practices. Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s opposition to the
testing/mask-wearing mandates is not religious but rather
personal, secular, and based on his own perceived opinion of the
weight of the medical evidence supporting those protective
practices.” (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 17) at 10.) Additionally, the
difference between the two requests “substantially undermines
the sincerity of his religious opposition to the testing/masking
requirements. Why? Because if he believed these measures were so
wholly offensive to his beliefs, he would not have offered this

concession.” (Id. at 15–16.)
Defendants’ objections implicate the consistency of
Plaintiff’s requests. Courts have previously maintained that
certain inconsistent statements or actions “dilute” the
sincerity of one’s religious-based objections. See Schmidt v.
Tchrs. Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., No. 3:23-CV-00881-FDW-DCK,
2024 WL 3380152, at *3 (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2024) (determining
that a plaintiff failed to “plausibly allege any evidence of
adherence to a religious tenant” after the evidence revealed
“that he was able to receive a vaccine for the flu a mere
fourteen months prior to his objection to a vaccine for Covid-
19”); see also DeVore v. Univ. of Kentucky Bd. of Trs., 118

F.4th 839, 846–47 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1903
(2025) (explaining that a plaintiff failed to establish a
“conflict between the Policy and any religious objections” after
first stating that “repeated testing can damage the first line
of defense God created,” then stating there “was no invasiveness
regarding the saliva test”).
While Plaintiff first objected to the Testing Policy by
requesting to “be allowed to continue to report to work . . . as
I have since December 2013 without any disciplinary actions,”
(Pl.’s Correspondence Nov. 17, 2021 (Doc. 17-2) at 2), and then
later stated that “I am not opposed to wearing a mask when I am

acting as a medical first responder in my law enforcement
capacity,” (Pl.’s Correspondence Nov. 30, 2021 (Doc. 17-3) at
3), such statements are not inherently contradictory. Plaintiff
explained on November 30, 2021, that he believed wearing a mask
“outside of the aforementioned emergency circumstances” amounted
to “daily and weekly rituals” that he viewed as a “different
religious practice” imposed by GCSO. (Id.) According to his
complaint, Plaintiff sought permission on November 30, 2021, “to
continue to work as he had prior to the Policy, self-monitoring
for symptoms.” (Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶ 10). Plaintiff also argues
that he made a similar request on November 17, 2021, when he
asked “to continue to work as he had been prior to the

implementation of the Policy.” (Id.) Moreover, Defendants
responded to Plaintiff’s November 30, 2021, request by stating
that Plaintiff previously “willingly and regularly abided by
certain grooming standards and requirements to wear protective
equipment” including “protective breathing apparatus.” (Defs.’
Correspondence Dec. 3, 2021 (Doc. 17-5) at 2.)
Therefore, this court is unable to determine whether
Plaintiff’s request to only wear a mask in emergency
circumstances and only test when he became symptomatic deviated
from the pre-COVID requirements of GCSO policy. Without a clear
baseline for practices prior to the Testing Policy, this court

cannot evaluate the consistency of Plaintiff’s requests. As
such, this court cannot grant summary judgment on the first
prong of sincerity.
Defendants also challenge the sincerity of Plaintiff’s
beliefs by contending that “Plaintiff fails to explain how
testing or masking violate those Biblical references” that form
Plaintiff’s objections. (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 17) at 10). As a
matter of religious conviction, this court cannot analyze
whether Plaintiff’s stated beliefs justify his objections. As
the Supreme Court explained, “[t]he validity of what [a
plaintiff] believes cannot be questioned. Some theologians, and
indeed some examiners, might be tempted to question . . . the

truth of [a plaintiff’s] concepts. But these are inquiries
foreclosed to Government.” Seeger, 380 U.S. at 184.
Notwithstanding that beliefs may change, certain “convictions
which some might find ‘incomprehensible’ or ‘incorrect’ come
within the meaning of ‘religious belief.’” Welsh v. United
States, 398 U.S. 333, 339 (1970) (quoting Seeger, 380 U.S. at
184–85).
This court is limited to evaluating whether Plaintiff has
articulated a religious belief or secular preference. See
Dachman v. Shalala, 9 F. App’x 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2001). To do
so, this court can consider whether Plaintiff’s objections

changed over time. While the parties do not dispute that
Plaintiff consistently objected to wearing a mask “on a routine
basis,” (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 17) at 10; Pl.’s Correspondence Nov.
30, 2021 (Doc. 17-3) at 3), the parties dispute whether
Plaintiff’s second request amounted to a “concession,” (Defs.’
Br. (Doc. 17) at 16), and whether either the first or second
request deviated from pre-Policy practices. This court is
therefore precluded from granting summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s prima facie claim.
ii. Defendants’ Undue Hardship
Even accepting that Plaintiff stated his prima facie claim,
this court will grant summary judgment to Defendants because

Defendants could not have accommodated Plaintiff without
suffering undue hardship. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court
determined that undue hardship “is shown when a burden is
substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”
600 U.S. 447, 468 (2023). Rejecting the notion that undue
hardship means “more than a de minimis cost,” the Supreme Court
explained that “an employer must show that that the burden of
granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased
costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
Id. at 470 (citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432
U.S. 63, 83 n.14 (1977)). Further, “courts must apply the test

in a manner that takes into account all relevant factors in the
case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue
and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and
operating cost of an employer.” Id. at 470–71 (internal
quotations and alterations omitted). An employer’s burden is not
limited to economic factors, see Hall v. Sheppard Pratt Health
Sys., Inc., 155 F.4th 747, 752–53 (4th Cir. 2025), and courts
can consider the impact on coworkers so long as the asserted
hardship is not “attributable to employee animosity to a
particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very
notion of accommodating religious practice.” Groff, 600 U.S. at
472.

Defendants have shown that Plaintiff’s requests would have
imposed undue hardship. Corresponding with Plaintiff on December
3, 2021, GCSO Legal Advisor Secor explained that Plaintiff’s
“duties as Deputy Sheriff require close, personal contact with
the public and other agency employees.” (Defs.’ Correspondence
Dec. 3, 2021 (Doc. 17–5) at 2.) Further, Secor stated that
Plaintiff “cannot perform those specific duties remotely from a
laptop at home” and that “the negative impact of accommodating
[Plaintiff’s] request would be substantial — i.e., unnecessarily
exposing our customers and your fellow GCSO employees to the
risk of COVID infection.” (Id.)

Recently, the Fourth Circuit determined that a medical
employer articulated undue hardship in the vaccination context
after denying a request to mask and test weekly when it
presented evidence of detriment to patients, increased risk to
coworkers, and an inability to perform job duties remotely. See
Hall, 155 F.4th at 753–55. Other courts have consistently found
that “the possibility of an unvaccinated individual getting
others sick [is] a non-speculative risk that a court may
consider when performing an undue hardship analysis.” Dodson v.
Lutheran Vill. at Millers Grant, Inc., No. CV EA-23-169, 2025 WL
1474319, at *7 (D. Md. May 22, 2025) (collecting cases). Such
cases “are indeed legion” with respect to organizations that

provide medical or first response services. Lumley v. Town of
Knightdale, No. 5:23-CV-663-FL, 2024 WL 3678348, at *5 (E.D.N.C.
Aug. 6, 2024). The “through-line” in each case is that the
“increased risks of getting others sick, even vaccinated
individuals, can be considered in deciding an undue hardship
under Title VII.” Bordeaux v. Lions Gate Ent., Inc., 703 F.
Supp. 3d 1117, 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2023), aff’d, No. 23-4340, 2025
WL 655065 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2025). Courts adopt this through-
line because public entities cannot function safely without
adequate staffing, see Gantt v. City of N. Charleston, No. 2:22-
CV-04224-DCN-MHC, 2024 WL 4486184, at *11 (D.S.C. July 25,

2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:22-CV-04224-DCN,
2024 WL 4343708 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2024), first responders
interact closely with coworkers and the public, see Marucci v.
Greater Baltimore Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 23-CV-0510-ABA, 2025 WL
860137, at *6 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2025), and the appearance of not
prioritizing safety could cause reputational harm and “erode[]
public trust.” Hall v. Sheppard Pratt Health Sys., Inc., 749 F.
Supp. 3d 532, 546 (D. Md. 2024), aff’d, 155 F.4th 747 (4th Cir.
2025).
The distinct facts of this case reinforce the legal
principles discussed above and demonstrate Defendants’ undue
hardship. Critically, the Testing Policy did not mandate COVID

vaccination. (Defs.’ Pol’y (Doc. 17-1) at 4.) Rather, GCSO
permitted employees to refuse vaccination and instead test
weekly and wear a mask. (Id.) These practices often are the
accommodation requests rejected by other employers. See Hall,
155 F.4th at 754; Gantt, 2024 WL 4486184, at *11–12; Marucci,
2025 WL 860137, at *5–7; Antredu v. Mass. Dep’t of Youth Servs.,
729 F. Supp. 3d 76, 81 (D. Mass. 2024). By permitting testing
and masking in lieu of vaccination, Defendants did not promote a
“vaccination culture,” see Caudill v. N. Carolina Symphony
Soc'y, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 3d 531, 561 (E.D.N.C. 2024), nor did
they “rely upon the services of first responders from

neighboring local government units, including of individuals who
were in fact unvaccinated,” while simultaneously requiring its
own employees to vaccinate. Lumley, 2024 WL 3678348, at *5.
Instead, Defendants gave its employees the choice to either
vaccinate or test weekly and wear a mask, and this universal
policy provided “no alternative employment option inside the
GCSO to offer Plaintiff as an accommodation.” (Defs.’ Suppl. Br.
(Doc. 25) at 14).
In light of the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Hall,
this court finds that the “specific circumstances” of
Plaintiff’s job prohibited remote work, (Defs.’ Correspondence
Dec. 3, 2021 (Doc. 17-5) at 2), and an exemption from testing

would have placed both the workplace and the public at risk. “It
is beyond cavil” that the health and safety of a workplace “is
of absolute importance.” Beickert v. New York City Dep’t of
Educ., No. 22-CV-5265(DLI)(VMS), 2023 WL 6214236, at *5
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023). This concern is elevated in a setting
where the job duties include “close personal (and sometimes
physical) interaction with members of the public, detainees, and
arrestees.” (Defs.’ Suppl. Br. (Doc. 25) at 14). This concern
reaches its apex when the public trust is shaped by safe
interactions. Because Defendants’ undue hardship implicates “the
potential loss of human life,” (id.), this court will grant

summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s Title VII claim.8
B. Section 1983
This court also finds that Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s Free Exercise claims.

8 Plaintiff states in his response that Defendants “never
held the required interactive process to gain further
information of how they could accommodate my religious
exemption.” (Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29) at 5.) Plaintiff does not
cite any authority which states that Defendants are “required”
to engage in an interactive process. While required in other
accommodation contexts, an interactive process is not mandatory
in the context of religious discrimination. See Marucci, 2025 WL
860137, at *6 n.9. To the extent that “bilateral cooperation” is
required, see Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 69
(1986), this requirement only exists “in defining the employer’s
accommodation obligation.” Id. This “obligation” is met when an
employer “demonstrates that it has offered a reasonable
accommodation to the employee.” Id. However, an employer is not
required to offer a reasonable accommodation, so long as it
demonstrates that it would suffer an undue hardship. Groff, 600
U.S. at 457. Here, because Defendants would have suffered an
undue hardship, this court finds that Defendants were not
required to have engaged in an interactive process.
Plaintiff asserts a claim against Defendants pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and qualified immunity shields government
officials “unless the official violated a statutory or
constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of
the challenged conduct.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664
(2012). This immunity provides officials with “breathing room to
make reasonable but mistaken judgments, and protects all but the
plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”
Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3, 6 (2013). Courts analyze qualified

immunity through a two-step process. Atkinson v. Godfrey, 100
F.4th 498, 504 (4th Cir. 2024). First, a plaintiff must prove
that a constitutional violation occurred. See id. Second, a
defendant must articulate whether the asserted constitutional
right was clearly established at time of the asserted violation.
See id. Either of the two prongs may be addressed first “in
light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.”
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).
This court finds that Defendants did not violate a clearly
established right. “A clearly established right is one that is
‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have
understood that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.’”

Adams v. Ferguson, 884 F.3d 219, 226 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015)). This right cannot be
defined “at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
563 U.S. 731, 742 (2011). The right instead must be “infringed
at a ‘high level of particularity,’” Atkinson, 100 F.4th at 505
(quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 250–51 (4th
Cir. 1999)), considering “the specific context of the case, not
as a broad general proposition,” Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12
(quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004)).
Read in the specific context of this case, Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants violated his right to work in a law

enforcement capacity exempt from a weekly testing and mask
wearing policy because of his religious beliefs. (See Compl.
(Doc. 2) at 1.) To determine whether the law clearly established
that Defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional, this court must
consider decisions from the United States Supreme Court, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the North Carolina Supreme
Court. Atkinson, 100 F.4th at 506 (citing Edwards, 178 F.3d at
251)). Absent such authority, this court may also consider “a
consensus of cases” from other jurisdictions. Id. (quoting Owens
ex rel. Owens v. Lott, 372 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir. 2004)). This
court finds that Plaintiff’s asserted right was not clearly
established at the time Defendants terminated Plaintiff.

The Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he right to
practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the
community . . . to communicable disease or . . . to ill health
or death.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166–67 (1944).
Applying Prince, the Fourth Circuit concluded that a state
statute “requiring vaccinations as a condition of admission to
school does not unconstitutionally infringe [plaintiff’s] right
to free exercise.” Workman v. Mingo Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 419 F.
App’x 348, 354 (4th Cir. 2011). More recently, in the context of
COVID-19, the Supreme Court identified that “[s]temming the
spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.”

Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 18
(2020). The North Carolina Supreme Court, citing earlier
decisions from “the start of the twentieth century,” noted that
“public welfare may sometimes justify vaccination mandates”
while “purely individualized medical decisions, on the other
hand, do not implicate such concerns.” Happel v. Guilford Cnty.
Bd. of Educ., 387 N.C. 186, 198, 913 S.E.2d 174, 187 (2025)
(citing State v. Hay, 126 N.C. 999, 1001, 35 S.E. 459, 460
(1900); Hutchins v. School Committee, 137 N.C. 68, 71, 49 S.E.
46, 47 (1904)). While each case presents unique facts and
variations on the legal issues between religion and vaccines,
none of the decisions from the Supreme Court, the Fourth

Circuit, or the North Carolina Supreme Court provide “fair
warning,” see Atkinson, 100 F.4th at 508, that a governmental
entity’s vaccination requirement, much less a testing and
masking requirement, violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
C. Municipal Liability
This court will also grant summary judgment to Defendants
for Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Sheriff Rogers in his
official capacity. Under Monell v. Department of Social
Services, a municipality “can be sued directly under § 1983 for

monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where . . . the
action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or
executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision
officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.”9 436
U.S. 658, 690 (1978). The Fourth Circuit has explained that, to
state a claim for Monell liability, a plaintiff “must show both
that he has suffered a constitutional harm and that the harm was
the result of the Department’s unconstitutional policy or

9 While “it may be less likely that a municipality may be
found liable when the constitutional terrain was as murky” in
the context of qualified immunity, Atkinson, 100 F.4th at 509,
this court finds it necessary to analyze Plaintiff’s official
capacity claim. Construed liberally, Plaintiff has alleged that
Sheriff Rogers acted under color of law, (see Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶
36), and has cited to Monell in support of his claims, (see
Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29) at 1–3). Mindful that “it is not
immediately apparent why the municipal fisc should be burdened
in the absence of any ascertainable federal standards by which
municipal policies can be gauged,” Atkinson, 100 F.4th at 510
(Wilkson, J., concurring), this court finds it necessary to
analyze the merits of Plaintiff’s claim. See id. at 509 n.8.
custom.” English v. Clarke, 90 F.4th 636, 649 (4th Cir. 2024);
see also Johnson v. Baltimore Police Dep’t, 500 F. Supp. 3d 454,
459 (D. Md. 2020) (“It is axiomatic that a Monell claim cannot
lie ‘where there is no underlying constitutional violation by
the employee.’” (quoting Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d
567, 579 (4th Cir. 2001))). While Plaintiff has identified an
official policy, see Howard v. City of Durham, 68 F.4th 934, 952
(4th Cir. 2023), Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this
policy caused a constitutional harm. Therefore, this court will

grant summary judgment to Defendants.
Plaintiff contends that the Testing Policy “forced [him] to
choose between violating his sincerely held religious beliefs or
being fired, imposing a substantial burden on [him] as well as
interfering with, and depriving him of, the enjoyment of the
religious liberties guaranteed him by the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution.” (Compl. (Doc. 2) at 12–13.) Defendants argue
that Plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim “fail[s] under both
rational basis review and strict scrutiny.” (Defs.’ Br. (Doc.
17) at 21.) Defendants assert that “the rational basis test
applies” because the Testing Policy “was completely content
neutral and applied to all full and part-time employees.” (Id.

at 21–22.) Additionally, “even if the more rigorous strict
scrutiny test applie[s],” Defendants argue that preventing
COVID-19 “exposure was an abundantly compelling justification”
and the decision to permit “simple testing and masking versus
mandatory vaccination demonstrates the narrowly-tailored nature”
of the Testing Policy. (Id. at 22–23.)
This court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim. “To implicate the
Free Exercise Clause, state action must burden religious
exercise.” Kim v. Bd. of Educ. of Howard Cnty., 93 F.4th 733,
747 (4th Cir. 2024). State action can burden religion “in

various ways, including by showing that a government entity has
burdened his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy
that is not ‘neutral’ or ‘generally applicable.’” Kennedy v.
Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 525 (2022) (quoting Emp.
Div., Dep’t of Hum. Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879–
81 (1990)). Conversely, actions that incidentally burden
religion “are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under
the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and
generally applicable.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S.
522, 533 (2021).
This court preliminarily finds that Plaintiff has suffered
a burden on his religious exercise. After objecting to the

Testing Policy and refusing to test weekly and wear a mask,
Plaintiff was terminated from his position at GCSO. Plaintiff
believes that the “Holy Spirit convicted him to refuse to comply
with the Policy,” (Compl. (Doc. 2) ¶ 13), and Defendants
maintain that that “there was no alternative employment option”
left to offer Plaintiff, (Defs.’ Suppl. Br. (Doc. 25) at 14). As
a result, the “employment relationship remains severed.” Polk v.
Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Sch., No. CV DLB-24-1487, 2025 WL 240996,
at *6 (D. Md. Jan. 17, 2025). This separation is sufficient to
demonstrate a burden on religious exercise.
However, Defendants have demonstrated that the Testing

Policy is both neutral and generally applicable. Government
action is not neutral “when it proceeds in a manner intolerant
of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their
religious nature.” Fulton, 593 U.S. at 533 (citing Masterpiece
Cakeshop v. Colorado C.R. Comm’n, 584 U.S. 617, 636–40 (2018);
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533
(1993)). Alternatively, government action is neutral “if it ‘has
no object that infringes upon or restricts practices because of
their religious motivation.’” Kim, 93 F.4th at 748 (cleaned up
in original) (emphasis in original) (quoting Alive Church of the
Nazarene, Inc. v. Prince William County, 59 F.4th 92, 108 (4th
Cir. 2023)) (citing Hines v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 148 F.3d 353,

357 (4th Cir. 1998) (“A law is considered neutral if it
proscribes conduct without regard to whether that conduct is
religiously motivated or not.”)).
This court finds that Defendants have not “transgressed
this neutrality standard.” Fulton, 593 U.S. at 533. From the
text of the Testing Policy, the “object” was not to “infringe
upon or restrict practices.” Church of Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 533.
Indeed, the Testing Policy clarified that both medical and
religious exemptions were not applicable to the testing
requirement, (see Defs.’ Pol’y (Doc. 17-1) at 4), and therefore

“did not single out religion alone.” Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th
20, 30 (1st Cir. 2021). While Defendants may have been able to
“deny a religious accommodation request even if the employer
ha[d] a history of granting that same request as a medical
accommodation,” see Hall, 155 F.4th at 754 (comparing Title VII
to the ADA), the Testing Policy made both religious and secular
exemptions “generally not applicable,” (Defs.’ Pol’y (Doc. 17-1)
at 4). Therefore, this court finds that Defendants did not treat
a “comparable secular activity more favorably than religious
exercise,” Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. 61, 62 (2021), and the
text of the policy is facially neutral.
Facial neutrality, however, is not determinative. See

Church of Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 534. If government action “affects
religious practice, even if indirectly, a court must look behind
the law’s text to determine if it was enacted ‘because of’ and
not ‘in spite of’ its effect on religion.” Alive Church of the
Nazarene, 59 F.4th at 108 (quoting Church of Lukumi, 508 U.S. at
540). Courts may consider contextual statements “surrounding the
law’s passage, and any deviations from standard decisionmaking
procedures.” Id. (citing Church of Lukumi, 508 U.S. 541–42).
Here, Defendants state that that the Testing Policy “applied
equally to all full and part-time employees.” (Defs.’ Suppl. Br.
(Doc. 25) at 21). Defendants explain that Testing Policy was

universal because “GCSO depends on a stable and dependable work
force, and it is unreasonable . . . [to] hand out temporary
furloughs to every employee with a gripe about COVID
preventative measures.” (Defs.’ Reply (Doc. 30) at 5). Thus, the
Testing Policy was not motivated by religious animus because
“[a]nyone who disagrees with them — for religious, secular, or
other reasons — must nevertheless abide by them.” Polk, 2025 WL
240996, at *8. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to provide any
contemporaneous statements or actions by Defendants indicating
that Defendants targeted religion when creating the Testing
Policy. Therefore, this court finds that the Testing Policy is
neutral.

The Testing Policy is also generally applicable. Government
action is not generally applicable when it “prohibits religious
conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the
government’s asserted interests in a similar way” or by creating
a “mechanism for individualized exemptions,” Fulton, 593 U.S. at
533–34 (quoting Smith, 494 U.S. at 884). To the extent Plaintiff
attempts to prove that the Testing Policy was not generally
applicable through evidence of “another part-time deputy,”
(Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29) at 5), this court finds that comparison
insufficient. Plaintiff failed to articulate whether this deputy
was “advised to not work” for religious, medical, or other

reasons. (Id.) Plaintiff did not establish whether this deputy
sought an exemption, or whether he was “away from work” because
he was placed on leave, resigned, or was terminated from
employment. (Id.) Plaintiff additionally does not state
Defendants’ reason for advising the deputy not to work, and
whether the deputy being “not absolutely needed to work” was due
to staffing, medical, or other reasons. (Id.)
Therefore, this court determines that by prohibiting
exemptions to the Testing Policy, Defendants “ma[de] no
distinction between religious and secular.” Kim, 93 F.4th at
748. The Testing Policy neither vested, see id., nor invited,
see Fulton, 593 U.S. at 533, Defendants to exempt certain
conduct. Without practices to the contrary, this court finds
that the Testing Policy was generally applicable.10
When government action is neutral and generally applicable,
courts subject the action to rational basis review. See Jesus
Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Baltimore City, 915
F.3d 256, 265 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (Feb. 25, 2019). This
standard of review “is quite differential” and “simply requires
courts to determine whether the classification in question is,
at a minimum, rationally related to legitimate governmental

goals.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 734 F.3d 344, 347–48 (4th Cir. 2013).

10 Even if Plaintiff had established that strict scrutiny
applies, Defendants have demonstrated that the Testing Policy
was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Church of Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 546. The Supreme Court has stated
that “[s]temming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a
compelling interest.” Diocese of Brooklyn, 592 U.S. at 18.
Moreover, in the context of vaccination policies for
governmental entities, “narrow tailoring requires the town to
show that measures less restrictive of religion could not
address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID.” Lumley,
2024 WL 3678348, at *8. The Testing Policy permitted employees
to refuse vaccination. Those who refused vaccination were
required to wear a mask and test weekly. Unlike cases where
governmental entities defended a vaccination requirement by
“citing various cases holding that testing, PPE, and other
precautions did not adequately serve a government actor’s
interest in preserving public health against COVID,” see id.
(collecting cases), Defendants have already incorporated an
accommodation into the policy itself. Therefore, the Testing
Policy both served a compelling interest and was narrowly
tailored.
This court finds that the Testing Policy is rationally
related to the legitimate government interest of preventing the
transmission of COVID-19 to both the workplace and the public.
Defendants identified this purpose in its Testing Policy,
stating that GCSO is “committed to promoting and providing a
safe workplace to all employees.” (Defs.’ Pol’y (Doc. 17-1) at
1.) Additionally, the Testing Policy “largely adopt[s] the
guidelines previously promulgated by Guilford County Human
Resources” and “shall apply to all full and part-time

employees.” (Id.) Courts considering employer vaccination
requirements have “easily conclude[d] that such a rational
relationship exists” because “vaccines are a safe and effective
way to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” Smith v. Biden, No.
1:21-CV-19457, 2021 WL 5195688, at *7 (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2021),
appeal dismissed as moot sub nom. Smith v. President United
States, No. 21-3091, 2023 WL 5120321 (3d Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).
This court agrees that “preventing the spread of COVID-19 is a
legitimate government interest,” Menk v. MITRE Corp., 713 F.
Supp. 3d 113, 176 (D. Md. 2024), and requiring either
vaccinations or weekly testing and masking in lieu of
vaccination is rationally related to such interest. Therefore,

this court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s claim against Sheriff Rogers in his
official capacity because Plaintiff has failed to show that he
has suffered a constitutional harm. English, 90 F.4th at 649.
D. Voluntary Withdrawal
This court will consider and ultimately deny Plaintiff’s
request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, (see Pl.’s
Resp. (Doc. 29) at 7). Responding to Defendants’ motion,
Plaintiff concluded by stating that he “moves for Voluntary
Dismissal without Prejudice of this action against all

defendants under the condition that the Court would grant me one
(1) year from the date of the entry of the Court’s order to
refile my action against all defendants.” (Id. (emphasis in
original).) Plaintiff “assert[s] that the time and circumstances
for proceeding with my action may not be entirely ripe,”
contending that “the availability of greater information as well
as the clarity provided by rulings in existing cases over the
coming year may make it efficacious for me to pursue this action
at a later date.” (Id.)
Defendants “strenuously oppose” Plaintiff’s motion on
procedural and substantive grounds. (Defs.’ Reply (Doc. 30) at

6.) Procedurally, Defendants argue that the motion is “wholly
defective as it violates Local Rule 7.3” because the motion was
not filed as a separate document and instead was “tucked, almost
as an afterthought, into this Response.” (Id.) Substantively,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to articulate a
legitimate basis for leave and dismissal without prejudice
“would prejudice Defendants who have invested significant time
in briefing this matter.” (Id. at 6–7.)
This court agrees with Defendants as a matter of procedure
that Plaintiff failed to follow the requirements of Local Rule
7.3. This rule requires that “[a]ll motions . . . shall be in
writing and shall be accompanied by a brief . . . . Each motion
shall be set out in a separate document.” LR 7.3(a). Plaintiff

did not include a separate motion with his response. While
Plaintiff’s failure to follow the rules is apparent, this court
will consider Plaintiff’s request given that he is proceeding
without counsel and is not held to the same standards as an
attorney. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 n.7 (1980).
Considering the merits, this court will deny Plaintiff’s
motion and grant summary judgment to Defendants. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), “an action may be
dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on
terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2). Motions to dismiss under Rule 41(a) are “a matter for
the discretion of the district court.” Davis v. USX Corp., 819

F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987). Such motions “should not be
denied absent plain legal prejudice to the defendant.” Gross v.
Spies, 133 F.3d 914 (4th Cir. 1998). When applying this plain
legal prejudice standard, courts must consider:
(1) the opposing party’s effort and expense in preparing
for trial; (2) excessive delay or lack of diligence on
the part of the movant; (3) insufficient explanation of
the need for a dismissal; and (4) the present stage of
the litigation, i.e., whether a motion for summary
judgment is pending.

Id. This court will deny Plaintiff’s motion because all four
factors support plain legal prejudice.
First, this court agrees that Defendants “have invested
significant time in briefing this matter for dismissal under
both Rules 12(b)(6) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” (Defs.’ Reply (Doc. 30) at 7.) Defendants have filed
an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, (see Defs.’ Answer (Doc.
19)), a motion to dismiss and brief in support, (see Defs.’ Mot.
to Dismiss (Doc. 16); Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 17)), and an objection to
Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Proceed, (Pl.’s Notice of Intent
to Proceed (Doc. 22); Defs.’ Obj. to Pl’s Req. for an Extension
of Time (“Defs.’ Obj.”) (Doc. 23)). Defendants cite Local Rule
7.3 as a basis for the objection, (Defs.’ Obj. (Doc. 23) at 3),
thus informing Plaintiff of the requirements for filing with
this court. Following the Magistrate Judge’s order stating the
intent to treat the motion to dismiss as one for summary
judgment, (Order (Doc. 24)), Defendants filed supplemental
briefing supporting summary judgment and provided affidavits
from Sheriff Rogers, Captain Pruitt, and Legal Advisor Secor,
(see Doc. 26; 27; 28). Following Plaintiff’s response, (Pl.’s
Resp. (Doc. 29)), Defendants replied with additional briefing,
(Defs.’ Reply (Doc. 30)). The facts and circumstances of this
case reveal that Defendants not only spent significant time
briefing but also expended effort holding litigants accountable.
Therefore, the first factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
The second factor also weighs in favor of Defendants. While
Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, this case was

previously stayed for failure to pay a filing fee. (Order (Doc.
4).) The Magistrate Judge had to remind Plaintiff of his service
obligations, (Order (Doc. 8)), and response requirements, (Order
(Doc. 21)). Then, after Plaintiff stated that he “was not
‘warned’ of [his] need to respond to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss,” (Pl.’s Notice of Intent to Proceed (Doc. 22) at 1)
(quoting Order (Doc. 21) at 1), the Magistrate Judge extended
the response deadline, (Order (Doc. 24) at 2). Plaintiff’s
response was then filed after the extended deadline. (See Pl.’s
Resp. (Doc. 29).) This court finds that Plaintiff has caused
delays throughout this case.
This court also finds that Plaintiff acted without

diligence in filing his response. As stated above, Defendants
cited Local Rule 7.3 when objecting to Plaintiff’s Notice of
Intent to Proceed. (Defs.’ Obj. (Doc. 23) at 3.) While this
court recognizes that the challenges of proceeding without
counsel, “pro se litigants are not entitled to a general
dispensation from the rules of procedure or court imposed
deadlines.” Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158, 163 (7th Cir. 1994).
Having previously been made aware of the rule by the opposing
party, Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the rules of this court
reveals at minimum a lack of diligence by Plaintiff.
The third factor supports denying Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff contends that “the availability of greater information
as well as clarify provided by rulings in existing cases over
the coming year may make it efficacious for me to pursue this
action at a later date.” (Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29) at 7.) This
court recognizes that it is “well established that, for the
purposes of Rule 41(a)(2), prejudice to the defendant does not
result from the prospect of a second lawsuit” and “the
possibility that the plaintiff will gain a tactical advantage
over the defendant in future litigation will not serve to bar a
second suit.” Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1274–75 (4th
Cir. 1987). However, it is also “settled that a plaintiff may
not obtain a non-prejudicial voluntary dismissal simply to

circumvent adverse rulings.” Teck Gen. P’ship v. Crown Cent.
Petroleum Corp., 28 F. Supp. 2d 989, 992 (E.D. Va. 1998) (citing
Paturzo v. Home Life Ins. Co., 503 F.2d 333, 336 (4th Cir.
1974)). Given Plaintiff’s admission that the “circumstances for
proceeding with my action may not be entirely ripe,” (Pl.’s
Resp. (Doc. 29) at 7), this court finds that Plaintiff’s request
more closely resembles an attempt to avoid an adverse ruling
than to gain an advantage in litigation. Plaintiff made this
request after Defendants had filed a brief in support of
dismissal with ten exhibits, (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 17)), which had
been converted into one for summary judgment, (Order (Doc. 21)),

and an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, (Defs.’ Answer (Doc.
19)). Plaintiff is not, as in Davis, attempting to transfer
litigation to state court “to resolve a difficult question of
state law.” Davis, 819 F.2d at 1275. Rather, it appears that
Plaintiff recognized the need for “greater information as well
as . . . clarity” to support his claims. (Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 29)
at 7.) By receiving Defendants’ briefs, the Magistrate Judge’s
orders, and permission to refile within a year, Plaintiff would
gain the benefits of tested theories and identified shortcomings
at the expense of Defendants’ resources. Therefore, the third
factor weighs in favor of denying Plaintiff’s motion.
The final factor also weighs in favor of denying

Plaintiff’s motion. Given the Magistrate Judge’s order, (Order
(Doc. 24)), and the responses by the parties, this court is
treating Defendants’ motion as one for summary judgment.
Plaintiff did not object to this order in his intent to proceed,
(see Pl.’s Notice of Intent to Proceed (Doc. 22)), and he did
not request a voluntary dismissal until his response, (see Pl.’s
Resp. (Doc. 29) at 7). Because Plaintiff’s request concluded his
last opportunity to be heard before summary judgment, the fourth
factor weighs in favor of Defendants. Therefore, based on the
totality of the circumstances, this court will deny Plaintiff’s
motion for voluntary dismissal and grant summary judgment to
Defendants.
Vv. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 16), 1s converted into a
Motion for Summary Judgment and is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice, (Doc. 29), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
A judgment dismissing this action will be filed
contemporaneously herewith.
This the 19th day of December, 2025.

United nip ts Bike, Me
- -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11228675. Public record. Not legal advice.