Health Aide Fired for Not Getting Vaccinated Entitled to Unemployment Benefits

An employee who was terminated because she would not comply with a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for religious reasons is entitled to unemployment insurance, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled.

The state’s high court denied a bid by Fallon Community Health Plan to block unemployment benefits for a former home health aide who served a vulnerable population during the pandemic.

The state’s high court found that while Fallon’s vaccination policy and its inability to accommodate the employee were both reasonable, the discharged employee was open to an accommodation and did not act with “deliberate misconduct” in “wilful disregard” of the employer’s interest, which is required to find someone ineligible.

The employee worked as a home health aide in Fallon’s eldercare program. In October 2021, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) notified Fallon and other organizations providing integrated care plans that they must require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. In response, Fallon adopted a policy requiring all employees who “work at its eldercare sites and provide direct care or have any physical contact or are in proximity with” patients to provide proof of vaccination.

Fallon’s policy provided for medical and religious exemptions but conditioned the exemptions on “the individual’s job being such that the employer can offer a reasonable accommodation to avoid risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19 on the job.”

The employee who sought to be exempt from the vaccine mandate asked whether accommodations could be made to allow her to continue working for Fallon despite her unvaccinated status. She expressed her willingness to wear full personal protective equipment, to frequently test for COVID-19, and to comply with alternative accommodations proposed by Fallon.

However, Fallon determined that, absent the employee getting a vaccination, no reasonable accommodations could be made to adequately protect patients from contracting COVID- 19. The home health aide’s request for a religious exemption was denied and she was discharged.

Thereafter, the aide applied for unemployment benefits. The state’s employment assistance department initially determined she was ineligible. However, that decision was reversed by a departmental review examiner. Fallon subsequently sought a district court review of that decision and the judge affirmed the board of review’s decision. The district court judge determined that Jefferson did not comply with Fallon’s policy, but that she was still eligible for benefits because the policy was “not reasonable on its face nor in the manner in which it was implemented,” because Fallon refused to grant a religious exemption to any applicant.

On appeal, the state’s high court disagreed with the district court’s reasoning that Fallon’s policy was not reasonable but ended up with the same conclusion that the employee was eligible for unemployment benefits.

The high court said the district court erred in finding Fallon’s vaccination policy unreasonable. The court noted that Fallon issued its policy in response to compulsory directives from the EOHHS and the policy included a procedure for medical or religious exemptions. Fallon’s inability to provide a reasonable accommodation in these circumstances did not mean that the policy was unreasonable as reasonable accommodations may not be available in every line of work, the high court stated.

Under Massachusetts law, an employee may be ineligible for unemployment benefits only if there is credible evidence of “deliberate misconduct” in “wilful disregard” of the employer’s interest, or to a “knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy of the employer, provided that such violation is not shown to be as a result of the employee’s incompetence.”

Fallon contended that the employee was disqualified, arguing that she engaged in deliberate misconduct in willful disregard of Fallon’s interest in keeping its vulnerable patient population healthy.

But the high court disagreed with Fallon’s interpretation, finding that the employee did not engage in “deliberate misconduct” by failing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. That her request for a religious exemption was denied does not mean that she engaged in deliberate misconduct.

In fact, the court said the employee engaged in a good faith effort to comply with Fallon’s policy. She was willing to take several measures, including wearing personal protective equipment and undergoing frequent testing, in order to keep Fallon’s vulnerable patient population safe.

Topics Massachusetts