Jim Kennedy v. Pei-Genesis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-1563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 24-1563 _______________

JIM KENNEDY, Appellant

v.

PEI-GENESIS _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00164) District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson _______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on February 20, 2025

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, and BIBAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 25, 2025) _______________

OPINION* _______________

BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

Jim Kennedy worked as a software developer for Pei-Genesis. His employer required

employees to take a COVID-19 vaccine unless they qualified for a medical or religious

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. exemption. At first, Kennedy said he did not want to because he thought the vaccine was

unsafe and ineffective. Several days later, he asked for a religious exemption. When he met

with his supervisor and a human-resources manager to discuss it, they found him rude and

fired him for insubordination during the meeting.

Kennedy sued Pei-Genesis under Title VII, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and

the Americans with Disabilities Act. He claimed religious discrimination, a hostile work

environment, failure to accommodate his religious practice, and disability discrimination.

The District Court granted summary judgment for Pei-Genesis, ruling that no reasonable

jury could find that his opposition to the vaccine was religious.

Kennedy now appeals. He insists that his beliefs are religious, and he also objects to

the District Court’s allowing discovery into his medical records and denying his request

for a protective order. He no longer presses his claim of disability discrimination. We re-

view the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and its discovery rulings for

abuse of discretion. Tundo v. County of Passaic, 923 F.3d 283, 286 (3d Cir. 2019); Brum-

field v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376, 380 (3d Cir. 2000).

Start with discovery. The District Court’s rulings were proper. In denying Kennedy’s

request for a protective order, it carefully balanced the relevant factors under Pansy v. Bor-

ough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786–92 (3d Cir. 1994). The District Court concluded

that discovery into Kennedy’s medical records was appropriate for two reasons: (1) the

evidence is relevant to whether he in fact holds the anti-medication, anti-vaccine religious

beliefs that he now espouses, and (2) Kennedy chose to put those beliefs at issue by bring-

ing this lawsuit. That was not an abuse of discretion.

2 And as the District Court held, no reasonable jury could find Kennedy’s beliefs were

sincerely religious. That is fatal not only to his religious-discrimination claim, but also to

his hostile-work-environment claim. For both claims, he must show that he “suffered in-

tentional discrimination because of religion.” Abramson v. William Paterson Coll. of N.J.,

260 F.3d 265, 276 (3d Cir. 2001) (cleaned up). A religious belief must be broader than

disconnected moral teachings; it must “lay claim to an ultimate and comprehensive truth.”

Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1035 (3d Cir. 1981) (cleaned up). Kennedy claims

that his religious belief is: “you got to watch what you put in your temple.” App. 108. But

when his supervisor first brought up the vaccine, Kennedy did not mention his religion, but

only safety. The single reason that the COVID-19 vaccine violates his supposed beliefs is

that he thinks this one vaccine is “unsafe” and “dangerous.” App. 216–17. When a friend

messaged him to “forget religion and all that” and focus on how the vaccine is “untested[,]

unproven[,] possibly unsafe,” Kennedy responded “I’m with you 100% .… It just seems

like common sense.” App. 487. Given his belated, inconsistent invocation of religion and

his private message to his friend, no reasonable juror could find his isolated moral objection

to be part of a “comprehensive truth.” Africa, 662 F.2d at 1035 (cleaned up); Fallon v.

Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 877 F.3d 487, 492–93 (3d Cir. 2017) (rejecting similar health

concerns about flu vaccine as a medical concern or “isolated moral teaching”). We will

thus affirm.