Christian Employee Suspended for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine Eligible for $5K, Labour Board Rules

The federal labour board has awarded $5,000 to a Christian employee placed on unpaid leave after being denied a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine policy.

Michelle Tati, a passport clerk with Employment and Social Development Canada, was on unpaid leave from Feb. 16, 2022, to June 20, 2022, after the department rejected her request for a religious accommodation, according to a recent decision by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, first reported by Blacklock’s Reporter.

The department denied Tati’s request under its COVID-19 vaccination policy, saying she had not established that her religious beliefs prevented her from being vaccinated.

Tati argued that the department violated her collective agreement and the Canadian Human Rights Act by refusing to accommodate her Christian beliefs. The department countered that her objections were based on personal conscience and secular concerns rather than religion.

Adjudicator Adrian Bieniasiewicz ruled in Tati’s favour, finding that her objections were rooted in sincerely held religious beliefs and that the department had discriminated against her.

“When assessing sincerity, the court must ensure only that the alleged belief is advanced in good faith, that it is neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not a contrivance,” he wrote, noting that courts should not arbitrate religious dogma or settle theological disputes.

Religious Beliefs

Tati requested a religious exemption in October 2021, saying she had been a practising Christian since 1988, attended church, and sought to follow the Bible’s teachings in her daily life.

According to the decision, she said she had accepted God as her lord and saviour and believed she needed his approval before taking medication, undergoing surgery, or receiving vaccinations. Tati said God had not permitted her to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and that disobeying him would compromise her relationship with God.

“She added that becoming vaccinated without His approval would be disobedience and would change her relationship with him,” the adjudicator wrote.

Tati also expressed concerns about the vaccine after her mother died in November 2021 following vaccination, saying she had “very little trust in the vaccine since then.”

In January 2022, the department rejected her exemption request, saying she had not sufficiently connected her vaccination refusal to her religious beliefs. It warned that she would be placed on leave without pay unless she received her first dose by Feb. 1, 2022.

Tati submitted another affidavit explaining that she opposed vaccines associated with fetal cell lines derived from abortions. Citing biblical passages, she argued that “a child in its mother’s womb is already a human being.”

She maintained that receiving such a vaccine “would be tantamount to betraying God and compromising her faith” because she believed it would make her indirectly complicit in abortion.

The department denied her request and placed her on unpaid leave on Feb. 16, 2022. She became eligible to return when the federal government suspended its COVID-19 vaccination mandate for public servants on June 20, 2022.

Board Rejects Department’s Arguments

Bieniasiewicz concluded that Tati’s hesitancy to receive a COVID-19 vaccine stemmed from sincere beliefs, including her Christian obligation to seek God’s authorization before receiving medical treatment and her opposition to vaccines associated with aborted fetal cell lines.

“It is not the validity of the belief that must be demonstrated, but its sincerity,” he wrote. “That said, I am of the view that the grievor’s beliefs are related to religion.”

Although he acknowledged that Tati’s concerns about her mother’s death were secular, he emphasized that religious and non-religious objections can coexist.

He rejected the department’s argument that Tati had failed to demonstrate religious practices predating the pandemic. He also dismissed its challenge to the sincerity of her opposition to fetal cell lines because she raised that concern in a second affidavit.

“I see no material inconsistency or contradiction in the grievor’s evidence in support of her request for an exemption,” he wrote.

Bieniasiewicz determined that Tati had established a case of religious discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. He also concluded that placing her on unpaid leave for four months “constituted a more-than-negligible or insignificant interference” with her right to exercise her religious beliefs.

Compensation

Tati sought reimbursement for lost salary and benefits, about $7,500 in overtime, $20,000 for pain and suffering, and another $20,000 for what she described as wilful or reckless discrimination.

Bieniasiewicz declined to award the full amount, finding that Tati had not established a sufficient causal link between some of her claimed losses and the department’s discriminatory actions.

He ruled that the department had violated both the collective agreement and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The department was ordered to pay $5,000 in salary and benefits and provide additional compensation for lost overtime opportunities within 60 days.