Chattanooga, Tennessee — A Chattanooga-based health insurance company, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has been ordered to pay $687,000 to a former employee who was dismissed for not complying with the company’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. A federal jury concluded after a three-day trial that the company failed to reasonably accommodate Tanja Benton’s religious beliefs.
Benton, a biostatistical research scientist, predominantly worked from home and maintained her work responsibilities did not necessitate physical interaction, which she argued made her physical vaccination unnecessary. She held the position for over six years before her termination in November 2021.
Benton’s attorney, Doug S. Hamill, articulated that her refusal to get vaccinated was rooted in her religious convictions. Benton claimed the vaccines’ development involved cell lines from aborted fetuses, which conflicted with her anti-abortion stance. Though these cell lines are lab-grown and originated from procedures decades ago, they are commonly used in the medical research field, similar to their use in developing other pharmaceuticals such as ibuprofen and aspirin.
The lawsuit highlighted that Benton’s job did not involve direct client interactions or on-site visits to medical facilities, negating the necessity for her physical presence in work environments where vaccines might be mandated for safety.
This judgment arrives amidst ongoing controversy regarding employer-enforced vaccine mandates. BlueCross initiated the mandate in late 2021, aligning with a White House directive that required vaccinations for employees of federal contractors by a specified deadline to enhance workplace safety amid the pandemic.
Despite the stance of the organization, opposition at various levels has been vocal, with Tennessee’s Governor Bill Lee and other state officials critiquing the federal mandate for overriding personal freedoms. BlueCross maintained that it had provided appropriate accommodations and that the mandate was lawful, a stance contradicted by the outcome of Benton’s case.
BlueCross expressed disappointment in the verdict through a statement from Dalya Qualls White, the company’s senior vice president and chief communications officer. White emphasized the company’s belief that the vaccine mandate was instituted to protect the health and safety of employees and the community based on prevalent federal guidelines.
The repercussions of this ruling could potentially influence pending lawsuits involving other past employees dismissed under similar circumstances. Benton’s case is the first involving a vaccine mandate at BlueCross to result in an award settlement, though not all cases have succeeded. Another former employee’s lawsuit was dismissed after failing to meet court-specified amendments.
Vaccination mandates have been a point of contention not only in workplaces but also vis-à-vis constitutional rights and individual liberties across the U.S. The debate extends into religious and ethical domains, as seen in Benton’s case, reflecting the complexity of balancing public health concerns with individual freedoms.
Legal and ethical experts suggest that this case might set a precedent, impacting how companies implement health and safety directives that could infringe upon employees’ personal beliefs and rights.
As businesses and institutions navigate these challenging dynamics, the intersection of health policies, employment law, and individual rights continues to evolve, particularly as it pertains to unprecedented global health crises such and the COVID-19 pandemic.