Judge rules hospital's right to protect workers and patients from deadly contagion trumps Catholic nurse's belief that the vaccines are derived from aborted fetuses

A federal judge has ruled Boston Medical Center had the right to fire an endoscopy nurse - who could interact with 80 patients on a typical day - for refusing to get Covid-19 vaccinations.

Kathleen Anastos, who is Catholic, said her October, 2021 firing violated her First Amendment religious rights, because she could not in good conscience take shots - which she claimed didn't work, anyway - derived from aborted babies. Sure, the Pope himself issued a statement saying Catholics could and should get the shots, but, she asked, what does he know? As US District Court Judge Myong Joun write in his decision earlier this month, "she did not believe that was the 'Catholic Church’s statement' based on her interpretation of Catholic teaching."

But Joun said the hospital proved there was no way it could provide "reasonable accommodations" for a nurse who got into the personal space of dozens of endoscopy and colonocpy patients a day. The hospital's right to do everything it could to protect the lives of its patients and other hospitals included the right to follow CDC guidance and issue an order giving employees the choice between getting shots or getting fired, Joun wrote. He noted that the hospital had to shut its endoscopy unit entirely three times as staffers fell sick with Covid-19.

Here, BMC has established that granting Ms. Anastos' accommodation would have resulted in undue hardship for the hospital. Ms. Anastos' work as an RN placed her in a particularly risky position to spread infection, as she was in-person and in close contact with vulnerable patients, their families, and other BMC staff. Allowing her to remain unvaccinated would have increased the risk of spreading COVID-19 throughout the hospital and beyond. See Antredu v. Massachusetts Department of Youth Services F. Supp. 3d 1, 5 (concluding that accommodating plaintiff's request to remain unvaccinated is an undue hardship due as their close proximity to patients and staff placed clients and colleagues at a higher risk of COVID-19). Furthermore, increased risk of transmission "would impair the hospital's ability to provide adequate care to patients, increase the chance of legal liability, and taint the reputation of the hospital." Therefore, if BMC allowed the accommodation, such accommodation would impede the BMC's ability to provide a safe environment for their already vulnerable patients, and negatively impact its reputation. Thus, BMC has established that granting Ms. Anastos' accommodation would have resulted in an undue hardship for the hospital.

Anastos's lawyer yesterday asked the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to overturn Joun's ruling.