Employment Discrimination Law | Public Health | Freedom of Religion

A Denver-based gold and copper producer, Newmont Mining Corporation, has recently reached a settlement with a group of former employees who sued over religious discrimination following termination for refusing the company’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

Background: The Vaccine Mandate & Terminations

In October 2021, Newmont implemented a company-wide COVID-19 vaccination requirement, effective by January 2022 (gazette.com). Nine Christian employees—based at Newmont’s Cripple Creek & Victor (CC&V) mine—filed requests for religious exemptions, stating their faith guided their decision to decline the vaccine.

One plaintiff, Tavis Rogers, explained his belief that “his body does not belong to him; … his Heavenly Father made those choices for me through His Word,” and described his immune system as “God‑provided” (cbsnews.com). Despite requesting reasonable accommodation—such as remote work—the employees’ requests were rejected and they were terminated for noncompliance .

Legal Claims: Title VII Violation & Religious Accommodation

The plaintiffs filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on April 11, 2023, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. They claimed Newmont:

• Denied valid religious exemptions;
• Refused to engage in a meaningful accommodation process (e.g. regular testing, remote work, face masks);
• Willfully discriminated with malice or reckless indifference to their religious rights (krdo.com).

The company maintained that its policy complied with federal law and would defend the case vigorously (krdo.com).

Broader Legal Context

This case is part of a wave of COVID-19 vaccine-mandate lawsuits from employees asserting Title VII religious discrimination:

• Cherry Creek Nursing Center: A judge reinstated a Christian employee’s lawsuit after being fired in October 2021 on religious grounds (mcknights.com).
• Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan: A Catholic IT specialist received nearly $12.7 million in damages after a jury found the company had failed to reasonably accommodate her request (hrgrapevine.com).

A landmark Fifth Circuit case, Horvath v. City of Leander (2020), confirmed that employers must offer a reasonable accommodation—not necessarily the one the employee prefers—but some accommodation (en.wikipedia.org).

Status & Significance

• The lawsuit is currently pending, with the settlement details not publicly disclosed.
• The case illustrates critical legal issues concerning:
  • The scope of “sincerely held religious beliefs” under Title VII.
  • The duty of employers to engage in meaningful religious accommodation, balancing health and workplace safety.
  • The risks of imposing mandatory vaccination policies without flexible alternatives like testing or remote work.

As COVID-19 mandates continue to influence workplace policies, employers—including those in traditionally high-risk industries like mining—must carefully evaluate their accommodation efforts to avoid discriminatory practices and costly litigation.

Conclusion: Protecting Freedom and Society

The Newmont case serves as a stark reminder that compliance with public health directives does not absolve employers of their legal obligation to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs. As courts across the country continue to grapple with the fallout from COVID-19-era mandates, this lawsuit reinforces a key legal principle: religious freedom remains protected—even in times of crisis.

For employers, especially in regulated or high-risk sectors, the message is clear: one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates are legally perilous without meaningful, case-by-case accommodations. As this and other settlements indicate, failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process with employees can result not only in costly litigation—but also in reputational damage and long-term erosion of employee trust.

In the post-pandemic legal landscape, striking the right balance between public safety and individual rights is no longer just an ethical imperative—it’s a legal one.