The Mayo Clinic violated federal law when it refused to grant a security guard’s request for a reasonable reli
gious accommodation to its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, and instead threatened to fire the employee, effectively forcing him to receive the vaccine and violat
e his conscience and religious beliefs to save his job, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed in Minnesota last week.
According to the EEOC’s suit, the employee requested an accommodation to Mayo’s vaccination policy because he was opposed to getting the COVID-19 vaccine based on his religious beliefs.
The employee, a security guard in a non-medical role, explained the basis of his religious beliefs, and offered that he would be willing to receive tests for CO
VID-19 and to wear a mask. However, the employer rejected his request for a religious accommodation because it did not believe the employee’s religious belief
s were sincere. Faced with termination, the employee submitted to the vaccination policy in order to avoid being fired, the EEOC said.
The clinic’s alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on th
e basis of religion, which includes failing to provide accommodations to an employee’s religious practice unless such
an accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.
The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Mayo Clinic, Case 0:25-cv-03066 D. Minnesota) in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrativ
e conciliation process. The EEOC seeks monetary damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, and seeks inj
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
unctive relief and policy changes designed to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.
The impetus for the litigation was legislation passed in 2017 that ordered the transfer of $200 million from JUA to the Commonwealth general fund. The JU
A then filed suit against the Governor and Insurance Commissioner, who the Attorney General has represented in the matter.
After years of litigation, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals last December ruled that the JUA is a public agency, not a private entity,
The ruling opened the door for the state to access the JUA’s budget surplus, which actually totals $300 million, and which regulators say is far in excess of what the
JUA needs for reserves to cover potential claims. The state maintained it has the right to access the funds for the good of the public. The JUA had successfully thwarted the state’s attempts to access its funds for years
The state created the JUA almost 50 years ago to act as a professional liability insurer of last resort for high-risk medical providers. It is funded by premiums paid by policyholders and investment returns on its funds. The JUA does not receive funding from its member companies or from the Commonwealth. All medical professional liability insurers writing in the state must join. The JUA has never paid any dividends or distributions to its policyholders; nor can it do so by law. Since its inception, it has amassed through investments its total surplus of about $300 million.