Porter v. United Dairy Farmers

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an employer “acted reasonably when it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees” based on “the views of public health authorities”
• explaining that employer “acted reasonably” in relying “on the objective, scientific information available to [it]” when denying religious exemption from vaccination requirement (quoting Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 649 (1998)
• finding that an employer may properly rely on the prevailing medical consensus at the time to determine that an accommodation is not reasonable and poses an undue burden by endangering public health
• “Determining whether a belief is religious is ‘a difficult and delicate task.’” (quoting Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 132 (1st Cir. 2004))
• rejecting plaintiff’s argument that summary judgment was erroneously granted because the employer did not proffer expert testimony establishing that the vaccine protects against transmission of COVID-19
• human resource official’s testimony describing the employer’s decision-making process and conclusion regarding the requested religious accommodation was a factual statement, not an impermissible lay opinion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).