Tyson Foods is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to properly consider religious accommodation requests and automatically placed employees with religious objections to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on unpaid leave.

Filed in federal court in Arkansas, the lawsuit centers on plaintiff Sarah Pearson, a 20-year Tyson employee. A senior controller, Pearson had worked remotely since February 2020.

Vaccine exemption for religious reasons

In August 2021, Tyson announced all U.S. employees must be vaccinated but stated religious and disability accommodations would be granted. Pearson requested an exemption due to her religious beliefs and asked to keep working from home.

However, the complaint alleges Tyson “predetermined” it would place religious objectors on unpaid leave before assessing individual accommodation requests. Pearson claims Tyson failed to evaluate if she could perform her remote job functions unvaccinated.

After months unpaid leave, Pearson filed an EEOC charge in March 2022. At that point, Pearson claims, she was asked to “demonstrate conduct” that proves the sincerity of her faith and show how her faith was connected to her decision not to get vaccinated.

According to Pearson’s complaint, she requested reinstatement after the company ended its vaccine mandate in October 2022. However, the company offered her a “significantly different” on-site job which would have required her to relocate, Pearson claimed. She declined the position and was terminated in December 2022.

Tyson under fire

Tyson Foods faced numerous lawsuits alleging inadequate COVID-19 safety measures at its meat processing plants during the pandemic, including wrongful death and personal injury cases. Other suits sought injective relief from the company’s vaccine mandate or alleged religious discrimination. Select cases are ongoing, and others have settled out of court.

Takeaways for employers

The Pearson case signals increased scrutiny of how employers managed religious exemptions to COVID vaccine policies, especially for remote workers. It underscores the need to conduct individualized assessments of each accommodation request rather than blanket decisions.

As remote work persists post-pandemic, courts may doubt undue hardship arguments for functions that can be performed from home. Furthermore, employers must be ready to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in a substantial increase in costs.