Court Dismisses Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Johnson & Johnson Over COVID-19 Testing.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Jill Gatto, a former employee of Johnson & Johnson Services Inc., who challenged the company’s COVID-19 testing policy on religious grounds.

Gatto, a devout Christian, was granted an exemption from the company’s vaccine mandate but objected to the required nasal swab testing, arguing that both the vaccine and testing rules represented “unjust tyranny” and persecuted God’s followers, as foretold in the Bible.

The court ruled that her objections were too broad and failed to sufficiently connect her religious beliefs to the testing requirement, leading to the dismissal of her claims.

Johnson & Johnson's Vaccine and Testing Policies

Gatto joined Johnson & Johnson in 2016 as an Executive Cardiovascular Sales Specialist. In August 2021, the company implemented COVID-19 safety protocols, allowing employees to request exemptions on medical or religious grounds.

Gatto sought and was granted an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine, citing her belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and should not be subjected to foreign substances. However, as a condition of her exemption, she was required to comply with alternative safety measures, including mask-wearing and daily nasal swab testing.

RELATED: Catholic Woman Awarded Over $12 Million After Termination for Refusing COVID Vaccine.

Employee's Religious Objection to Testing

Gatto later requested an exemption from nasal swab testing, stating that she objected to any procedure involving the insertion of foreign matter into her body, the collection of bodily fluids, and the reporting of results.

Johnson & Johnson denied this request, leading to Gatto being placed on unpaid leave and ultimately terminated in October 2021. In response, she filed a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Court Ruling: Religious Claim Too General

The court examined whether Gatto’s refusal of nasal swab testing was based on a sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with her job requirements.

Ultimately, the Third Circuit ruled that her objections were primarily secular, driven by personal discomfort and opposition to corporate mandates, rather than specific religious doctrines. Because of this, the court found that Gatto failed to establish a valid claim for religious discrimination, leading to the dismissal of her lawsuit.

Legal Implications of Religious Exemptions in the Workplace

This case highlights the legal challenges employees face when seeking religious exemptions from workplace health and safety policies.

Courts require clear and specific evidence that an employee’s objection is rooted in religious belief, rather than personal preference or general opposition to company policies. Gatto’s failure to directly link her religious beliefs to COVID-19 testing protocols ultimately undermined her claim.

This ruling sets a precedent for future workplace accommodation disputes, reinforcing that religious exemption requests must demonstrate a direct conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs to be legally protected.