A Rockford judge has ruled the Winnebago County Health Department was wrong to attempt to remove a Catholic nurse, who did not want to take part in the department's contraceptive services and abortion referrals, saying the agency could have easily accommodated her.
Winnebago County Circuit Judge Eugene Doherty issued the ruling Oct. 25, favoring licensed practical nurse Sandra Rojas in her dispute with Dr. Sandra Martell, who is Administrator of the Winnebago County Health Department.
The case is centered on the decades-old Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
That law has been vaulted into public view in recent weeks, as a growing number of workers have cited it to back their right to object to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Democratic state lawmakers voted narrowly in late October to change the Conscience Act, specifically so the Act cannot be used to block employers from firing employees who refuse vaccination on grounds of conscience or religion. Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who had urged lawmakers to amend the law, is expected to sign the measure.
Pritzker and other supporters of vaccine mandates said the amendment to the law was needed, because vaccine mandate opponents were allegedly misusing the law. The law, they said, was intended primarily to protect health care workers, like nurses, from being forced to provide abortion services and other medical actions they believed violated their religious beliefs or conscience.
Judges elsewhere in Illinois have granted requests to block vaccine mandates, saying the language of the law may be able to be applied to people objecting to being forced to take vaccines, citing religious objections.
Rojas' case had nothing to do with vaccines. Rather, she cited the law to back her right to not be forced to promote abortion services and other medical acts that she said violated her faith and conscience.
Rojas has been an LPN since 1990, and joined the department in 1996. She was working in 2015 as a nurse focusing on pediatrics. But in July that year, the department was restructured, making Rojas also responsible for providing women's health services. In her new capacity, Rojas was told she was required to furnish birth control information and offer abortion referrals.
Rojas told Martell she could not perform such duties, given her religious views. Martell told Rojas she could instead be a temporary part-time county food inspector or take up a job at the county nursing home. Rojas was given three weeks to decide. During that period, Martell accommodated Rojas by letting her avoid patients needing contraceptives or abortion information.
After the three weeks expired, Rojas declined to take either of the alternative jobs and resigned. She lost $18,767 in salary and $213,088 in pension benefits, according to court papers. Rojas sued in 2016, claiming she was a victim of discrimination based on her conscience.
"This case reflects the tension between conflicting values honestly held," said Judge Doherty in summing up the matter.
Doherty determined Rojas was forced to leave her job or else she would have "compromised" her conscience. For Martell's part, she treated Rojas differently than others who did not voice objections, and was willing to fire Rojas for not abandoning her objections, and would have done so if Rojas had not quit, Doherty noted.
Doherty said Martell's offer to transfer Rojas would not have breached the Right of Conscience Act, if the reproductive services constituted a major part or all of Rojas' duties. However, Doherty found little of Rojas' work involved such duties during the three weeks she was accommodated. As a consequence, the judge further found accommodating Rojas did not burden other nurses.
"Although Dr. Martell felt that accommodating Plaintiff's request could impose a hardship on other employees, this is a conclusion unsupported by other evidence," Doherty noted.
Doherty pointed out other nurses had to spend more time dealing with reproductive matters, but on the other hand, Rojas compensated by spending more time on the "many other services to which she did not object." After Rojas left, Martell acknowledged the department was even more shorthanded.
In Doherty's view, Martell's real worry was whether Rojas could be trusted to fulfill her duties that might tangentially involve birth control or abortion, such as in taking a patient's history that might include abortion or use of contraceptives.
"Requiring Plaintiff to transfer out of her job because of things she might do — but has exhibited no intention or inclination to do, even during her three-week period of accommodation — gives short shrift to Plaintiff's rights under the Conscience Act," Doherty concluded.
Doherty added, "It would seem that this is precisely the type of objection that the Conscience Act was designed to protect."
Although Doherty ruled Martell was in the wrong, he decided Rojas did not mitigate her pay and pension losses by accepting the nursing home job. Nonetheless, Doherty awarded Rojas $2,500, because the Conscience Act calls for payment of at least $2,500 for every violation.
Rojas has been represented by attorney Noel Sterett, of Dalton & Tomich, of Rockford; as well as the firms of Nathan J. Noble P.C., of Belvidere; and Mauck & Baker, of Chicago.
Martell has been defended by Knight, Hoppe, Kurnik & Knight, of suburban Rosemont.