On June 9, 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed District Court Judge Kennelly’s decision in Anderson v. United Airlines, Inc., denying the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, dismissing the case. No. 24-1626 (7th Cir. June 9, 2025). If plaintiffs’ appeal had been successful Anderson would have added to a growing list of Seventh Circuit decisions regarding the viability of vaccine mandate claims in the employment realm. However, the Northern District, as affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, dismissed the case before any substantive decisions could be made.
The proposed second amended complaint in Anderson alleged that United Airlines violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; the Illinois Whistleblower Act; constituted an invasion of privacy; acted negligently; and violated its employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs under Title VII, when it mandated employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
In some instances, the Seventh Circuit has found that employees successfully state a claim that a vaccine mandate constitutes religious discrimination under Title VII. See Bube v. Aspirus Hospital, 108 F.4th 1017 (7th Cir. July 29, 2024) and Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., 108 F.4th 1005 (7th Cir. July 29, 2024). Shortly after the Bube and Passarella decisions, the Northern District of Illinois, in Flores v. Cook County, laid out a helpful collection of cases illustrating the strength of a claim alleging religious discrimination under Title VII in regards to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. No. 23 CV 16260 2024 WL3398360 at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2024). However, the Title VII claims in Anderson did not make it to this analysis as it fell into a procedural pitfall when none of the twenty-eight plaintiffs had obtained a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC prior to filing its motion for leave to file the second amended complaint. The remaining claims did not fare much better. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the majority of plaintiffs’ remaining claims which were dismissed on forfeiture grounds as the plaintiffs did not respond to Defendant’s briefing on the issue. Lastly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim under the Illinois Whistleblower Act because the proposed amended complaint could not show how the receipt of COVID-19 vaccine would render the recipient medically unable to act as a pilot.
Properly pled Title VII claims continue to provide an avenue for relief for individuals with religious accommodations when it comes to employer mandated vaccine requirements. However, as demonstrated in Anderson gaining a foothold in another claim remains elusive.
By Amanda Burns, Caffarelli & Martin Ltd.
