NORTH CAROLINA (From news reports) -- he 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals will allow a North Carolina woman to proceed with a religious discrimination claim against the employer who fired her in 2021 for refusing vaccination against COVID-19.

The court's split 2-1 decision Monday, Aug. 31, overturns a trial judge's ruling. At the trial court level, Delsonya Wilkins-Bailey had lost her case against Essity Professional Hygiene North America. While accepting Wilkins-Bailey's religious discrimination arguments, the 4th Circuit rejected her claim of racial discrimination.

Essity fired Wilkins-Bailey as a sales administrator in December 2021 when she refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

Wilkins-Bailey "has identified religiously as a Jehovah's Witness, a follower of the Nation of Islam, and as a Christian," according to the 4th Circuit's opinion. "She has generally refrained from vaccination throughout her life," according to the appellate decision. "Wilkins-Bailey bases her vaccine refusal on her belief that it 'is God's law' that 'I have to be protective of my temple.'"

"Essity contends that because Wilkins-Bailey believes she may personally interpret the requirements of her religion, that her interpretation is therefore the product of a 'personal decision,'" US District Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia wrote the Appeals Court majority. "On this reading, her beliefs may be religious, but they are not essential. In turn, Essity maintains that she could simply decide not to object to vaccination and that her objection is therefore a mere 'preference' or 'personal choice' that does not state a claim of religious discrimination under Title VII."

"We do not agree," Hudson explained. "This interpretation of Title VII would leave millions of religious Americans unprotected in their workplaces. Many religions permit and even encourage their adherents to discern or interpret official texts, teachings, and tenets in order to decide for themselves which actions are required to fulfill religious obligations. Some religions have no centrally managed canons, nor agreed-upon sacred commandments. Title VII protects even those religions which do not require strict adherence to a written catechism."

"Wilkins-Bailey made it abundantly 'clear that what forms [her] protective view of her body are the tenets of her ... faith,'" the majority opinion added. "A reasonable juror could find that Wilkins-Bailey held at least a mixed motive for her vaccine refusal: a bona fide religious belief alongside political, scientific, and moral beliefs. Accordingly, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Wilkins-Bailey stated a prima facie claim because she held a sincere religious belief requiring that she refuse vaccination. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment as to the claim of religious discrimination and remand for further proceedings."

Appeals Court Judge Steven Ageee joined Hudson's opinion. Judge Henry Floyd issued a partial dissent. Floyd would have upheld the trial court's entire ruling favoring Essity.

"The lower court correctly identified that Wilkins-Bailey had not established a genuine dispute as to whether her belief -- that her body is her temple -- was religious in nature," Floyd wrote. "The majority instead suggests that a plaintiff's vague, contradictory testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to create a jury question as to religious discrimination even where that testimony does not clearly define the contours of the plaintiff's belief or its conflict with the employment requirement."

"Binding precedent dictates that '[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff,'" Floyd added. "I would find that Wilkins-Bailey has not produced or identified sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment."

Floyd raised concerns about the impact of the majority's ruling.

"In practice, the majority's low evidentiary bar would allow any plaintiff who brings a religious discrimination claim to reach a jury so long as they testify that their personal decisions are cloaked in religiosity," the dissent explained. "This is improper at summary judgment stage."

"Under the majority's reasoning, an employee who obliquely references Psalm 127:2 (New Int'l Version) ('In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat -- for he grants sleep to those he loves.') to refuse to work before noon creates a jury question as to whether the company religiously discriminates when it declines to accommodate that employee's schedule," Floyd wrote.

The dissent cited additional Bible verses that could justify an employee's choice to disobey a company's alcohol policies, demand remote work, or refuse "to work alongside disabled co-workers."

"The natural extension of the majority's logic nonetheless shows the floodgates concerns as to cherry picking verses from the Bible or other religious texts and broadly interpreting them to allow personal decisions to be considered 'religious' under Title VII," Floyd warned. "To be clear, under our precedents any and all of these interpretations could qualify as protected religious beliefs, but the evidentiary precedent the majority establishes here creates a true floodgates issue. Perhaps the majority should consider building an ark to alleviate these floodgates concerns, lest this court risk being swept away by the flood of religious discrimination claims to come."

"Had Wilkins-Bailey -- in addition to her contradictory testimony -- provided expert witness testimony or even testimony from a third-party to support that her belief is connected to her refusal that could be sufficient to reach a jury," Floyd added. "But she did not do so, and we should not carve a shortcut through the burden of proof framework simply because judicial review of religious beliefs is difficult."