A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a religious discrimination case brought by a former hospital employee who claimed he was fired for refusing a flu inoculation despite his claims that vaccinations went against his religious beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in a precedential decision that plaintiff Paul Fallon's beliefs did not constitute a “religion” under Title VII, affirming the ruling of the lower court.

Fallon initially refused the vaccination mandated for all employees by Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, claiming that it would do more harm than good. He then sought a religious exemption, citing a quote from Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, which he paraphrased as “'one should not harm their own body,'” according to Senior Judge Jane Richards Roth's opinion.

Roth reasoned that Fallon's agreement with the quote and other Buddhist views does not constitute a religion defined under federal law, specifically laid out in the 1981 case of Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—filed by Frank Africa, an incarcerated member of the MOVE organization professing to be a “naturalist minister.”

In Africa, the Third Circuit held that “a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.”

Based on that, Roth reasoned that Fallon's appeal fell short.

“Generally, he simply worries about the health effects of the flu vaccine, disbelieves the scientifically accepted view that it is harmless to most people, and wishes to avoid this vaccine. In particular, the basis of his refusal of the flu vaccine—his concern that the flu vaccine may do more harm than good—is a medical belief, not a religious one,” Roth said.

Addressing Fallon's belief in avoiding self-harm, Roth said, “This one moral commandment is an 'isolated moral teaching'; by itself, it is not a comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters. Thus, we do not believe that either of the first two factors in Africa is met here.”

He also failed to meet the third factor, Roth said, because he could not point to any formal services, clergy or ceremonies associated with his beliefs to indicate they had an associated religious structure.

Roth also mentioned that other federal courts have reached similar conclusions in religious discrimination cases involving vaccines.

“We note that we are not the only court to come to the conclusion that certain anti-vaccination beliefs are not religious,” she said. “This is not to say that anti-vaccination beliefs cannot be part of a broader religious faith; in some circumstances, they can, and in those circumstances, they are protected. However, Fallon has not presented such circumstances here.”

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, lawyer Alan H. Schorr represents Fallon and did not respond to a request for comment. Andrea M. Kirshenbaum of Post & Schell represents the hospital and also did not respond to a request for comment.

A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a religious discrimination case brought by a former hospital employee who claimed he was fired for refusing a flu inoculation despite his claims that vaccinations went against his religious beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in a precedential decision that plaintiff Paul Fallon's beliefs did not constitute a “religion” under Title VII, affirming the ruling of the lower court.

Fallon initially refused the vaccination mandated for all employees by Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, claiming that it would do more harm than good. He then sought a religious exemption, citing a quote from Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, which he paraphrased as “'one should not harm their own body,'” according to Senior Judge Jane Richards Roth's opinion.

Roth reasoned that Fallon's agreement with the quote and other Buddhist views does not constitute a religion defined under federal law, specifically laid out in the 1981 case of Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—filed by Frank Africa, an incarcerated member of the MOVE organization professing to be a “naturalist minister.”

In Africa, the Third Circuit held that “a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.”

Based on that, Roth reasoned that Fallon's appeal fell short.

“Generally, he simply worries about the health effects of the flu vaccine, disbelieves the scientifically accepted view that it is harmless to most people, and wishes to avoid this vaccine. In particular, the basis of his refusal of the flu vaccine—his concern that the flu vaccine may do more harm than good—is a medical belief, not a religious one,” Roth said.

Addressing Fallon's belief in avoiding self-harm, Roth said, “This one moral commandment is an 'isolated moral teaching'; by itself, it is not a comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters. Thus, we do not believe that either of the first two factors in Africa is met here.”

He also failed to meet the third factor, Roth said, because he could not point to any formal services, clergy or ceremonies associated with his beliefs to indicate they had an associated religious structure.

Roth also mentioned that other federal courts have reached similar conclusions in religious discrimination cases involving vaccines.

“We note that we are not the only court to come to the conclusion that certain anti-vaccination beliefs are not religious,” she said. “This is not to say that anti-vaccination beliefs cannot be part of a broader religious faith; in some circumstances, they can, and in those circumstances, they are protected. However, Fallon has not presented such circumstances here.”

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, lawyer Alan H. Schorr represents Fallon and did not respond to a request for comment. Andrea M. Kirshenbaum of Post & Schell represents the hospital and also did not respond to a request for comment.