Earlier this year, I wrote about a decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning an employee who refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine because of its conflict with her religious beliefs. After the employee was terminated, she filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging religious discrimination, and the case survived the employer’s motion to dismiss. The lesson was that employers may question the sincerity of their employees’ religious beliefs at their own peril.

The recent case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab demonstrates another valuable lesson – employers have greater rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to seek information than they do under Title VII’s religious mandates.

Tarquinio followed a familiar fact pattern. Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab (APL) directed employees to vaccinate themselves against COVID-19. Ms. Tarquinio asked for a medical exemption to accommodate her asserted disability (Lyme-induced immune dysregulation). There was just one problem. It wasn’t clear to APL exactly why her condition necessitated the requested accommodation (i.e., exemption from the company’s vaccine mandate).

When an employee claims that a proffered accommodation interferes with their religious beliefs, employers often are better served to fight another day. The law is strict when employers question the sincerity of their employees’ religious beliefs.

The ADA, though, is a different story, as APL knew quite well. APL requested to speak with Ms. Tarquinio’s doctors to understand her request (as Lyme disease is not a medical contraindication for COVID vaccination). When Ms. Tarquinio refused to provide permission for them to do so, and continued to refuse to take the vaccine, APL terminated her.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered summary judgment for APL, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court explained the ADA’s “interactive process,” in which, after an employee seeks accommodation, the employer and employee should work together and “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” In this case, it was Ms. Tarquinio, and not the employer, who was responsible for the breakdown in that process by refusing to allow APL to speak with her doctors or provide relevant information which would allow it to make an informed decision about her request. The Court also affirmed longstanding law that the ADA only requires accommodating known limitations; in this case, when Ms. Tarquinio’s disability was not obvious, APL was entitled to seek further information about it and how it impacted her daily activities.

While employers don’t have carte blanche under the ADA to seek any information they want, this case underscores that an employer does have rights to certain information. Employers don’t have to (and should not) rely blindly on the employee’s assertion of having a disability or that such disability requires accommodation.

For assistance in all workplace matters involving the ADA and accommodation, contact an RKW Employment Attorney.