Advocate Aurora Health, a prominent hospital network based in Illinois, has been sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegedly violating federal law by refusing to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and terminating her for declining a COVID-19 vaccination. The lawsuit claims that the hospital system’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
According to the EEOC complaint, Advocate Aurora Health introduced a policy in 2021 requiring all employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine unless they were granted an exemption based on their religious beliefs. The nurse at the center of the case formally requested a religious exemption in line with this policy. While the hospital had previously granted her a “lifetime” exemption from the flu vaccine due to her religious beliefs, it denied her request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine.
The nurse, adhering to her religious convictions, declined the COVID-19 vaccination. The hospital subsequently terminated her employment, prompting the EEOC to file a lawsuit on her behalf. The agency asserts that Advocate Aurora Health failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, in direct violation of federal anti-discrimination law.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on religion and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious beliefs, practices, or observances unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. The EEOC contends that Advocate Aurora Health’s refusal to consider the religious exemption request, despite previously granting a lifetime exemption from a similar vaccination, constitutes unlawful discrimination under the statute.
The EEOC pursued its case administratively before filing the lawsuit, attempting to resolve the matter through its conciliation process. When those efforts were unsuccessful, the agency filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under the case title EEOC v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-15411.
In its complaint, the EEOC highlights that the nurse’s termination was directly tied to her religious beliefs, asserting that the hospital’s actions denied her equal employment opportunity and subjected her to discriminatory treatment. The agency emphasizes that employers are obligated under federal law to engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations for religious practices, particularly when such accommodations would not create undue hardship.
The lawsuit seeks to hold Advocate Aurora Health accountable for its alleged failure to meet these obligations, and it underscores the broader legal principle that employees cannot be penalized for adhering to sincerely held religious convictions. While the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccination policy was implemented to protect public health, the EEOC’s suit argues that such policies must still comply with federal civil rights protections.
This case is part of a larger trend of disputes arising from employer vaccination mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the intersection of public health requirements and employees’ religious rights has led to legal challenges. The EEOC continues to emphasize that religious exemptions must be taken seriously and that blanket policies denying accommodations may constitute unlawful discrimination.
The outcome of this case could have implications for healthcare providers and other employers nationwide, particularly in managing vaccination mandates while respecting employees’ religious beliefs. As the litigation proceeds, Advocate Aurora Health will have the opportunity to respond to the EEOC’s allegations and provide its position regarding the termination and exemption denial.
The EEOC’s suit serves as a reminder that employers must carefully balance public health policies with their legal obligations under federal civil rights laws, ensuring that employees’ religious beliefs are accommodated whenever reasonably possible.