Order | Filed: September 30, 2026
| Entered: October 05, 2026
Zepka et al v. Berkshire Health Systems, Inc. et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Summary Judgment
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 82 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Pending before this court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Berkshire Health Systems, Inc. ("BHS"), Berkshire Medical Center, Inc. ("BMC"), Fairview Hospital ("Fairview"), and Berkshire Faculty Services, Inc. ("BFS") (collectively "Defendants"). This action, consolidated with 23-cv-30015-MGM, arises out of Defendants' mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for its employees, including Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 114.) During the COVID-19 public health emergency, Defendants adopted a policy requiring all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 1, 2021, denied Plaintiffs' requests for exemptions, and terminated Plaintiffs' employment rather than allowing them to continue working without obtaining the vaccine. (Id.) Twelve plaintiffs allege Defendants, by terminating their employment, discriminated against them on the basis of their religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, and one plaintiff alleges Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of a disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). (Id.) As explained below, this court concludes that Defendants sufficiently established that they could not accommodate Plaintiffs without incurring "undue hardship," and in so doing "joins several other judges of this Court in finding undue hardship in similar circumstances." Theresa Gabana M.D., Plaintiff, v. Tufts Med., Inc., et al., 2026 WL 2719879, at *4 n.3 (D. Mass. Sept. 15, 2026) (collecting cases). Under both Title VII and the ADA, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case that a bona fide religious practice, or disability, conflicts with an employment requirement and was the basis for an adverse employment action, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it either offered a reasonable accommodation or could not do so without incurring an undue hardship. Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 133 (1st Cir. 2004) (applying Title VII); Murray v. Warren Pumps, LLC, 821 F.3d 77, 84 (1st Cir. 2016) (applying the ADA). Defendants do not contest that the twelve plaintiffs asserting Title VII claims established a prima facie case that a bona fide religious practice was the basis for an adverse employment action. (See generally Dkt. No. 88 ("Defs. Mot.") at 19-26.) Nor do Defendants contend that they offered those plaintiffs a reasonable accommodation. (Id.) Rather, Defendants' sole contention is that offering those plaintiffs a reasonable accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship on their medical facilities. (Id. at 18.) With respect to the one plaintiff asserting an ADA claim, while Defendants contest that she even made a prima facie case in the first instance, (id. at 27-28), Defendants contend that, regardless, offering a reasonable accommodation to her would have imposed an undue hardship on their facilities. (Id. at 19-26.) Defendants contend that "[t]he undisputed facts demonstrate that Defendants reasonably determined that Plaintiffs requested accommodations would have resulted in undue hardship" and accordingly they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Defs. Mot. at 29.) Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that "[t]here is plenty of evidence [in the] record to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendants' assertions of undue hardship," and this court should deny Defendants' summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 95 ("Pl. Resp.") at 18.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ("The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."); Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Bureau for Representing Ukrainian Ints. in Int'l & Foreign Cts., 87 F.4th 62, 77 (1st Cir. 2023) (discussing Rule 56(a)). In the context of COVID-19, the First Circuit has held that an employer can establish "undue hardship" by showing that the employer "relied on the objective, scientific information available to it, with particular attention to the views of public health authorities" when "it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees." Rodrique v. Hearst Comms., Inc., 126 F.4th 85, 91 (1st Cir. 2025) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Melino v. Boston Med. Ctr., 127 F.4th 391, 397-98 (1st Cir. 2025) (concluding healthcare employer that "implemented its [COVID-19] vaccine requirement based on the CDC's recommendations" had sufficiently established that allowing unvaccinated employee to continue working "would pose an undue hardship by increasing the risk of COVID-19 transmission amongst staff and patients" (i... (truncated)