�鶹ֱ��

While March 2020 may seem like a distant memory, courts across the country are still busy hearing cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent federal jury verdict in McCormick v. Chicago Transit Authority₁ reminds us that employers must remain cognizant of their vaccine requirements and exemption processes — or risk costly litigation.

On August 29, 2025, a jury found the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and awarded an ex-employee, Kevin McCormick, $425,000 in damages. The CTA fired McCormick in April 2022 after he refused to be vaccinated for COVID-19, citing his Catholic faith as the basis for his objection. McCormick stated that he could not receive the vaccine because he is opposed to abortion and believed the vaccine was created from and tested with aborted fetal cells. McCormick also expressed concerns about the safety of the vaccine, including concerns that the vaccine may cause cancer or heart problems. The CTA denied his exemption request, stating that he did not appear to hold a sincere religious belief. After McCormick’s employment was terminated, he brought suit under Title VII and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The latter claim was dismissed on summary judgment as the court found that the CTA had a compelling government interest in requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 during the peak of the pandemic. 

At trial, counsel for the CTA argued that the decision makers who denied McCormick’s exemption request did not even know he was Catholic and focused on his medical and safety concerns when evaluating his request. McCormick also testified that he had taken other drugs without researching if they were developed using fetal cell lines. 

In contrast, McCormick’s counsel argued that the CTA failed to sufficiently articulate its expectations for those seeking exemptions to the vaccine and that, ultimately, the CTA made McCormick choose between his job and God. He argued that it should not matter that McCormick also had non-religious concerns with taking the vaccine.₂

The jury sided with McCormick, finding that the CTA unlawfully denied him necessary accommodations in violation of Title VII. 

The CTA suit is not unique and is among hundreds of suits filed alleging discrimination against those who refuse to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and other ailments. The jury’s decision in the McCormick case provides a reminder for employers to be mindful that Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs, unless doing so would post an undue hardship. 

As we explained to our readers, the Supreme Court heightened that undue hardship standard for employers in June 2023 in Groff v. DeJoy, holding that employers now must prove that granting a religious exemption would cause the employer to incur “substantial increased cost,” as opposed to the previous standard only requiring employers to show that increased costs were more than “de minimis.”&�Բ�����;

Employers requiring vaccinations should review their vaccine exemption procedures to ensure there is a clear process in place for evaluating exemption requests and documenting the findings appropriately. 

[1] No. 1:23-cv-01998 (N.D. Ill. 2023)

[2] The Seventh Circuit recently considered this argument in Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., 108 F.4th 1005 (7th Cir. 2024), and opted to reopen two lawsuits accusing a health system of discriminating against the healthcare workers who refused to be vaccinated for COVID-19. The Seventh Circuit stated that an employee seeks a religious accommodation when that request is at least based in part on some aspect of a religious belief or practice.