On Jan. 23, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied in part Newton Public Schools’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a former school psychologist who sued for religious discrimination after being fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

She is allowed to continue her lawsuit, as a matter of free exercise, despite not having a written exemption explanation from her church.

In 2021, Newton Public Schools required all staff to either receive a COVID-19 vaccine or request a medical or religious exemption. Sydni O’Connell requested an exemption on the basis of her Greek Orthodox Christianity beliefs.  Newton Public Schools denied this request and said she would need to present religious literature supporting her position and a signed affidavit from a representative of her religious group.

O’Connell provided three quotations from church-related literature, explaining why she, as a Greek Orthodox person, is opposed to experiments on human embryonic cells, and why she is opposed to coerced medical treatments and putting “unnecessary medicines” in her body. She did not, however, present a signed affidavit from a religious official (the Greek Orthodox Church is officially pro-vaccine). O’Connell was fired in January 2022 for her refusal to comply, which led her to file a religious discrimination lawsuit.

However, while religious discrimination is illegal, those who feel they have been discriminated against are expected to file a complaint with their state Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before filing a federal lawsuit, or with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination before filing a state lawsuit. O’Connell did not do this.

“[I]t is clear from the pleadings that O’Connell has not exhausted her administrative remedies and her claims of religious discrimination must be dismissed,” wrote Judge Angel Kelley.

But Kelley denied the motion to dismiss the Free Exercise claim, holding that it’s plausible (at least enough to warrant discovery) that religious exemption requests were subject to different documentation requests than medical exemptions.

“The Free Exercise Clause protects from unequal treatment based on religion […] and from “governmental compulsion either to do or refrain from doing an act forbidden or required by one’s religion,” noted Kelley.

Therefore, NPS could not dismiss her claims of NPS’ violation of the free exercise clause—which is why O’Connell’s lawsuit is allowed to continue forward.