Objections to Treasury Board policy shifted over time; no nexus with sincere religious beliefs
A federal worker’s claim of discrimination based on his employer’s denial of his request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination policy has been denied by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.
In October 2021, the federal Treasury Board implemented a policy requiring all federal government employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, with exceptions allowed for those unable to receive the vaccine for medical or religious reasons. Employees who were unable to get vaccinated were accommodated as much as possible through teleworking, alternative duties, mandatory COVID-19 testing, or a combination of these measures.
Employees had until Oct. 29 to attest that they had been vaccinated or request accommodation. If an accommodation request was deemed to be unjustified and the employee remained unvaccinated, they would be placed on an unpaid leave of absence.
The worker was employed with the federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development since 2009.
When the vaccination policy was announced, the worker applied for accommodation to avoid vaccination based on his religious beliefs. On his application, he stated that he was “baptized as a Catholic” and, although he stopped attending church on a regular basis, he went for special occasions such as Christmas and Easter. The worker said that his Catholic beliefs told him to “follow my conscience to be moral” and that “vaccination is not morally obligated and must be done so voluntarily.” He also said that he was unable to get vaccinated because the vaccine “infringes on my conscience rooted in religious teachings.”
Opposition to vaccines
The ministry asked the worker for more details about his application. The worker explained that he rarely took vaccines as an adult and taking the COVID-19 vaccine “would be a defilement of my body” that he feared could harm him, especially his heart. He also said that, although some religious leaders were in favour of the vaccine, he had to follow his own beliefs and conscience that vaccination wasn’t a moral obligation and must be voluntary.
The ministry denied the worker’s application on Nov. 29, on the basis that he had failed to demonstrate how his religious beliefs prevented him from being vaccinated.
The worker asked for reconsideration of the decision, mentioning for the first time that the use of fetal cell lines in the development of the vaccine meant that he had “a general moral duty to refuse the use of medical products, including certain vaccines, that are produced using human cell lines derived from direct abortions,” which were contrary to his religious beliefs.
The ministry reviewed the new information submitted by the worker. On Dec. 3, the worker filed a discrimination grievance. One week later, the ministry denied the worker’s accommodation request a second time and the worker emailed a manager at Global Affairs Canada stating that all vaccines conflicted with his religious beliefs because they were “an attempt by man/woman to correct God’s mistakes.”
Shortly before the worker was to be placed on unpaid leave, he became fully vaccinated. He said he felt guilty about it, but he couldn’t afford to be on unpaid leave due to financial issues he was experiencing.
Test for prima facie discrimination
The board referred to the three-part test for discrimination that the worker had to prove, involving a characteristic protected from discrimination under the Canada Human Rights Code, an adverse impact, and a connection between the adverse impact and the protected characteristic. It had also been established that in order to prove religious discrimination, there had to be a nexus between a “deeply held” and sincere personal belief and a religion.
The board found that the worker’s claims of religious belief lacked sincerity. While some of his stated grounds were found to have a religious nexus - including concerns about treating his body as a temple and opposition to the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development - the board determined that his beliefs were not sincerely held.
The board noted several inconsistencies in the worker’s claims and noted that he was vaccinated before being placed on unpaid leave - a factor considered relevant in assessing the sincerity of his beliefs.
"While becoming vaccinated does not fully dispose of this grievance, it weakens his claim of sincerely held beliefs," said the board.
Shifting religious objections
Additionally, the board found that the worker’s religious objections appeared to shift over time. Initially, his request was grounded in a general conscientious objection – that didn’t have a nexus with religion, according to the board - but after his application was denied, he raised concerns about fetal cell lines being used in vaccine development. The board acknowledged that while this concern could have a religious nexus, the timing and lack of consistent religious practice undermined the sincerity of the worker’s claim.
The board noted that the worker provided no evidence of current religious practices or that his religious beliefs played a significant role in his life beyond the issue of vaccination, highlighting that the worker didn’t attend church regularly as an adult and presented no testimony demonstrating an active engagement with his faith.
The board determined that the worker failed to demonstrate a sincere religious belief that prevented him from complying with the vaccination policy, failing the first element of the test for prima facie discrimination. The grievance was denied.
