Rockmond Dunbar, a former actor in the show ‘9-1-1’, was forced to resign due to noncompliance with Disney’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Disney required certain employees to get vaccinated to protect the safety of the whole cast and crew, but Dunbar claimed that being vaccinated was against his religious beliefs. He is a member of the Church of Universal Wisdom and has been since 2014. This church’s main ideals include promoting purity of the mind and spirit and the physical body. Thus, it is sacrilegious to ingest any medicine or chemicals into the body, including vaccines. Dunbar put in a request to receive an exemption from the vaccine mandate but his request was denied. He has claimed that since the Church of Universal Wisdom is small and unknown, Disney did not take his request seriously, and asserts that his religious group is being discriminated against.
The issue at stake here is; Is Disney discriminating against Dunbar and the Church of Universal Wisdom, and is firing Dunbar against his right to Free Exercise? The Central District of California court dismissed this case and ruled that not accepting Dunbar’s accommodation request was not a matter of religious discrimination. The vaccine mandate is a neutral policy that does not target any one religion and there is a compelling state interest to keep the cast and crew safe from COVID-19. Dunbar could not prove that any other member of the Church of Universal Wisdom was affected by this vaccine policy so Disney could not be targeting this church specifically. He also argued that many other employees who held similar beliefs have experienced the same type of discrimination, but he was unable to prove this as well. The court ends by saying that accepting this type of accommodation can lead to a slippery slope. If there is a church for every sort of mandate put in place, there would be “limitless” possibilities for exemptions. Overall, this mandate is a neutral policy that does not discriminate against Dunbar’s beliefs and thus does not violate his right to Free Exercise.
Dunbar’s case is similar to that of Employment Division v. Smith. In this case, Smith, an employee at a drug rehabilitation center, was fired for religiously ingesting peyote, a hallucinogenic drug. Smith was denied unemployment benefits by the state and claimed that this was against his right to Free Exercise. The Supreme Court ruled that this is not a violation of Smith’s Free Exercise, since the prohibition against ingesting peyote is a neutral generally applicable law. This is similar to Dubar v. Disney because the policy that both religions go against are neutral. Neither religion is being targeted by either policy put in place and they both serve a compelling state interest.
I agree with the court in this case and I do not think that denying Dunbar’s request is a matter of discrimination. The vaccine mandate is a neutral generally applicable law that does not target Dunbar’s religion. Since the Universal Church of Wisdom is relatively small and new, it can be difficult to tell if discrimination is occurring. However, it is important to think about the court’s slippery slope argument and the fact that no one else with similar beliefs has proved to be discriminated against. Although it was not used in Employment Division v. Smith, I would apply the Sherbert Test in this case. First, I would say that this mandate is a burden on Dunbar’s religious freedom since it is explicitly sacrilegious to get vaccinated according to his beliefs. However, I do think that the vaccine mandate is a compelling state interest and there are no restrictions in the mandate that specifically target the Universal Church of Wisdom. All in all, I think that Dunbar’s religion is far too niche to be making these sorts of discriminatory claims in court. It is impossible to address every employee's beliefs while also protecting the greater good of the company. I do not think Dunbar’s religion is being targeted or discriminated against.
What do you think? Is not accepting Dunbar’s accommodation a violation of his Free Exercise, as well as discrimination against his religion?
Congregation of Universal Wisdom. “Home.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://seekwisdom.life/.
Justia Law. “Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/.
Peoplemag. “Former ‘9-1-1’ Actor Rockmond Dunbar Sues Disney Over Vaccine Mandate, Claims Racial
Discrimination.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://people.com/tv/9-1-1-rockmond-dunbar-sues-disney-20th-television-for-racial-discrimination/
Scribd. “Dunbar v. Disney | PDF | Disparate Impact | Civil Rights Act Of 1964.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://www.scribd.com/document/605195031/Dunbar-v-Disney.
5 comments:
I agree that this was not a violation of the Free Exercise Amendment. While Dunbar had a significant burden placed upon him, this was done in the name of public safety. While his religious beliefs are valid, giving him the exception would get in the way of protecting the rest of the cast's safety. Additionally, because of the severity, there was no less restrictive means to keep him and the rest of the show safe.
Great post! I also agree with the court’s ruling in this case. Even though getting the vaccine would have placed a significant burden on Dunbar’s religion, I agree with the argument that there was compelling state interest that overrides this burden. In addition to this, this policy was neutral and was not targeted at any specific religious group. I also found the court’s slippery slope argument to be very compelling in this case.
This is a very interesting case. The first question that popped into my mind after reading this is whether or not the size and how long a religion has been established might impact how serious people take it. If a religion is smaller and more recently founded, does it mean it is “less” of a religion than others, and that discrimination should be able to ensue towards it until it has proved itself to be legitimate? I agree with the court that Dunbar’s First Amendment Free Exercise Rights were not explicitly violated in this instance. Coupled with the fact that an exemption could lead to a slippery slope, I find the state does have a compelling state interest to protect the well being of all persons from COVID-19. With this in mind, Dunbar could not work on this exact television show, but was given the opportunity to if he got vaccinated. He could still choose however, not to get vaccinated and carry out his religious beliefs. There are many places that allow for people to get exempt from the vaccine, so if Dunbar didn’t want to get vaccinated, he could continue to follow his religious beliefs and work elsewhere.
I agree with the ruling of the case on the basis that Disney is a private company and Dunbar is not entitled to employment there. I can sympathize with the idea that being vaccinated against COVID is against what he claims to be his sincerely held religious beliefs, however, Dunbar electively entered into this contract voluntarily and must have been informed of any health-related policies. If Dunbar cannot follow the policies of his contract for employment, he was aware that his employment would be terminated.
This was an extremely interesting post to read Angie, and I am also inclined to side with both the courts and your decision here. I can understand the burden that is being placed on Dunbar, however, this burden becomes much more substantial when it comes to protecting the overall safety of the public. I also agree that the vaccine mandate does seem to be neutral, seeing as how there are no restrictions in the mandate that specifically target the Universal Church of Wisdom. Overall I do believe that there is a compelling state interest that overrides the burden placed on Dunbar.
Post a Comment