USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 11

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1416

JENNIFER FINN; KATHERINE MULDOON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, Chief District Judge. (1:23−cv−02107−GLR)

Argued: September 9, 2025 Decided: November 20, 2025

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn and Judge Harris joined.

ARGUED: Francis J. Collins, F.J. COLLINS LAW, LLC, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellants. Leslie Victoria Maffeo, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Samantha M. Safchinsky, KSC LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Karla Grossenbacher, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 11

DIAZ, Chief Judge:

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Humane Society of the United States 1 (like

many employers) instituted a company-wide vaccine mandate, requiring their employees

to get vaccinated or risk termination. Two of the Society’s remote employees, Katherine

Muldoon and Jennifer Finn, requested religious exemptions from the mandate. But the

Society denied both requests and eventually fired them.

Muldoon and Finn sued, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act. They also brought claims for disability discrimination under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court granted the Society’s motion

to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

We recently clarified the requirements to state a Title VII religious discrimination

claim in the vaccine mandate context in Barnett v. Inova Health Care Servs.,

(4th Cir. 2025). We reaffirm them today. Because Muldoon and Finn plausibly allege that

their beliefs are an essential part of a religious faith and they connect those beliefs to their

refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the district court erred in dismissing their Title

VII claims.

But we agree with the district court that Muldoon and Finn fail to state ADA claims.

So we affirm the court’s dismissal of those claims.

1 The Society recently changed its name to Humane World for Animals. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 11

I. A. For purposes of this appeal, we accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true. 2

Barbour v. Garland,

, 589 (4th Cir. 2024).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society implemented a company-wide

vaccine mandate. It notified employees that they could seek a religious or medical

exemption, but that it would fire those who didn’t comply. Muldoon and Finn, two remote

employees, requested religious exemptions. 3

Muldoon objected to “injecting a product containing fetal cells or derived from

testing involving fetal cells” because such products are “against [her] personal moral

beliefs on the sanctity of life.” J.A. 40. She also stated that “accepting this vaccine would

compromise the religious beliefs founded in [her] Christian upbringing that fetuses are

individuals and did not consent to the use of their bodies in medical testing or production.”

J.A. 40. And “taking this vaccine would make [her] complicit in an act that offends [her]

spiritual and religious faith.” J.A. 40.

Finn explained that receiving the vaccine would “betray[]” her “conscience and

faith.” J.A. 37. She cited Catholic teachings that aligned with her faith, pointing to

2 We also consider the exemption requests attached to the complaint. Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd.,

(4th Cir. 2016) (“While a 12(b)(6) motion focuses on the allegations of the complaint, it is well established that a document attached to a motion to dismiss may be considered when evaluating a motion to dismiss if the document was integral to the complaint and authentic.” (cleaned up)). 3 The vaccine mandate applied to remote workers. 3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 4 of 11

statements from Saint Paul VI and the Catholic Bishops of Wisconsin on the importance of

following one’s conscience. And she emphasized, “[her] heart, conscience and faith in God

and Jesus prevent [her] from complying with the mandate.” J.A. 37.

After speaking with the two employees about their religious beliefs, the Society

denied their exemption requests and fired them.

B.

Muldoon and Finn sued. They allege that the Society engaged in (1) religious

discrimination by failing to approve their vaccine exemption requests, in violation of Title

VII (Count I); (2) disability discrimination by inquiring into their vaccination status, in

violation of the ADA (Count II); and (3) disability discrimination by regarding

unvaccinated employees as disabled and then firing them for that reason, also in violation

of the ADA (Count III). See Finn v. Humane Soc’y of the United States, No. 23-2107,

, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 24, 2024).

The district court granted the Society’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The court, without the benefit of our Barnett decision, concluded that Muldoon and Finn

“failed to adequately plead that their objections to the COVID-19 vaccine were based on

religious beliefs.” J.A. 51.

Muldoon, the court said, failed to “allege that she subscribes to a particular

religion . . . [or] state what her [current] religious beliefs are.” J.A. 52. And Finn failed to

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 5 of 11

“identify if she subscribes to any particular religion or the specific nature of any religious

beliefs.” J.A. 51. 4

As for the ADA claims, the district court noted that “[i]t is well settled that an inquiry

about vaccination status does not constitute a medical examination or an inquiry about a

disability or disabling condition.” J.A. 55–56. So the court dismissed the ADA unlawful

medical examination or inquiry claims. The court also found that “a person’s status as

unvaccinated does not support a ‘regarded as’ claim under the ADA,” and so it dismissed

those claims as well. J.A. 57.

This appeal followed.

II.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Barbour, 105 F.4th at 589. We must accept the

complaint’s factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the

plaintiffs. Id.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead sufficient facts to “state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 678–79 (2009)

(citation omitted). But a complaint need not allege specific facts to establish a prima facie

4 The district court also found that Muldoon and Finn failed to adequately plead a disparate treatment claim under Title VII. But neither allege such a claim. So we don’t discuss it further. 5 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 6 of 11

case. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema,

(2002) (finding that the prima facie case

is “an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement”).

III.

We start with the religious discrimination claims.

A.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer can’t “discharge any

individual, or otherwise . . . discriminate against any individual . . . because of such

individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). But to claim such protection, a

plaintiff must show her professed belief is (1) sincerely held and (2) religious in nature.

See United States v. Seeger,

(1965). The parties dispute only the second

prong.

We’ve articulated two requirements for this “religious” prong at the pleading stage

in vaccine mandate cases: (1) a person’s beliefs must be an “essential part of a religious

faith”; and (2) such beliefs must be “plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the

COVID-19 vaccine.” Barnett, 125 F.4th at 471 (citation omitted).

Under the first requirement, a person must plead that their beliefs are grounded in

religious, rather than secular reasons (medical, personal, etc.). 5 See Dachman v. Shalala,

A person may have many reasons for opposing a vaccine mandate. But that person 5

must articulate a religious opposition to comply with Title VII and our precedent. A religious belief “need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion.” Welsh v. United States,

(1970). Rather, an individual may “deeply and sincerely hold[] beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in 6 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 7 of 11

(4th Cir. 2001) (“While an employer has a duty to accommodate an

employee’s religious beliefs, [it] does not have a duty to accommodate an employee’s

preferences.” (emphasis added)). But we give great weight to a person’s assertion that their

“belief is an essential part of a religious faith.” Barnett, 125 F.4th at 471.

The second requirement demands slightly more—a link between the identified

religious belief and the person’s refusal to get vaccinated. In other words, a person can’t

refuse to get vaccinated solely because of health or safety concerns. Rather, the person

must “plausibly connect[]” her “refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” to her religious

beliefs. Id.

B.

With that legal framework in mind, we turn to the allegations of the complaint.

Muldoon asserts that she opposes the use of aborted fetal cell lines to produce the

COVID-19 vaccine because of her “Christian upbringing.” J.A. 40. And Finn explains

that she would “betray[]” her “conscience and faith” if she complied with the mandate,

citing Catholic teachings. J.A. 37. At the pleading stage, these allegations are enough to

show that Muldoon and Finn’s beliefs are each “an essential part of a religious faith that

must be given great weight.” Barnett, 125 F.4th at 471 (cleaned up).

Muldoon expressly links her refusal to “inject a product containing fetal cells or

derived from testing involving fetal cells” to her “religious beliefs founded in [her]

Christian upbringing that fetuses are individuals and did not consent to the use of their

source and content but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience . . . [in] a place parallel to that filled by ‘God’ in traditionally religious persons.” Id. at 340. 7 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 8 of 11

bodies in medical testing or production.” J.A. 40. That connection satisfies the second

requirement.

Finn’s claim is more attenuated but sufficient (for now) to meet the second

requirement. Finn connects her belief that her “heart, conscience and faith in God and

Jesus prevent [her] from complying with the mandate” to Catholic teachings on the

importance of one’s conscience. J.A. 37. In our view, that allegation is close enough to

Barnett’s statement that her “religious reasons for declining the covid vaccinations . . . were

based on her study and understanding of the Bible and personally directed by the true and

living God.” Barnett, 125 F.4th at 471 (cleaned up).

We agree with our sister circuits that a person needn’t explain “how any particular

tenet or principle of her religion prohibited vaccination.” Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc.,

(7th Cir. 2024); see also Lucky v. Landmark Med. of Mich., P.C.,

(6th Cir. 2024). And we are compelled to heed the Supreme Court’s repeated

command that “courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a

religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.” Emp. Div. v. Smith,

(1990).

In short, the law only requires a person to plausibly allege that her refusal to be

vaccinated derives from an aspect of her religious practices or beliefs. Muldoon and Finn

have done that.

That’s not to say that employees have a blanket privilege to claim a religious

exemption whenever they see fit. An employer needn’t grant a religious accommodation

if doing so would create an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

8 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 9 of 11

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). But we have no cause to consider undue hardship at this stage of the

case. 6

And it bears emphasis that an employee must eventually offer evidence of the

sincerity of her religious belief, whether at summary judgment or at trial. We decline to

speculate how Muldoon and Finn will fare as this case progresses. It’s enough that they’ve

pleaded a sincere religious belief that conflicted with the vaccine mandate. The district

court erred in concluding they hadn’t.

IV.

On to Muldoon and Finn’s ADA claims.

A.

The ADA makes it unlawful for employers to “discriminate against a qualified

individual on the basis of disability.”

(a). Muldoon and Finn bring two

ADA claims: (1) an unlawful medical examination or inquiry claim and (2) a “regarded

as” claim.

Under the ADA, an employer can’t “make inquiries of an employee as to whether

such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the

We employ a burden-shifting framework in religious accommodation cases 6

typically at summary judgment. See E.E.O.C. v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co.,

(4th Cir. 2008). The burden only shifts to the employer to show that it couldn’t reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s religious needs without undue hardship if the employee first establishes a prima facie case of religious discrimination. See

9 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 10 of 11

disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with

business necessity.”

§ 12112(d)(4)(A).

Muldoon and Finn say that the Society had no valid business reason to inquire into

their vaccination status, especially because they were remote employees. But that

argument is fatally flawed: an employer’s inquiry into an employee’s vaccination status

isn’t a disability-related inquiry. See Jorgenson v. Conduent Transp. Sols., Inc., No. 22-

01648,

, at *5 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2023), aff’d, No. 23-1198,

(4th Cir. June 21, 2023).

The ADA defines disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially

limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.” Davis v. Univ. of N.C.,

(4th Cir. 2001). Whether a person is vaccinated has no bearing on her ability

to engage in major life activities, like “[c]aring for oneself, performing manual tasks,

seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending,

speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting

with others, and working.”

(i)(1)(i).

Because Muldoon and Finn’s claims fail at the start, we need not reach the “business

necessity” analysis.

B.

Muldoon and Finn’s “regarded as” claims fare no better. A person is “regarded as”

having a disability if she is “subjected to an action prohibited under [the ADA] because of

an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits

or is perceived to limit a major life activity.”

(3)(A). “[T]he analysis

10 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1416 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/20/2025 Pg: 11 of 11

focuses on the reactions and perceptions of the [employer].” Wilson v. Phoenix Specialty

Mfg. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up).

Muldoon and Finn allege that the Society regarded them as disabled because they

were unvaccinated and then fired them for that reason. But, once again, being unvaccinated

isn’t a physical or mental impairment. It therefore can’t support a “regarded as” claim.

V.

For these reasons, we vacate that part of the district court’s order dismissing

Muldoon and Finn’s Title VII claims, and remand. We otherwise affirm.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

11