EAST ST. LOUIS - U.S. Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison ruled on Jan. 23 that former Centralia prison worker Garrett Rose can proceed with a claim that his employer fired him for not wearing a mask in 2022.
Sison found Rose sufficiently alleged religious discrimination by stating he wore a mask at first but decided he worshiped an idol.
Sison cited Supreme Court precedent that religious beliefs do not need to be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others.
He found Rose requested duty in a guard tower, on the grounds or in mail delivery.
He found Rose claimed other employees ignored the mask mandate.
Darrell Dunham of Carbondale filed Rose’s complaint against the corrections department, its director Rob Jeffreys, and Centralia prison employee Billie Bryan last February.
“At all relevant times Rose was and remains a Christian who feels compelled to obey the Word of God as set forth in the Bible as led by the Holy Spirit," Dunham wrote.
He claimed Rose started working at Centralia Correctional in 2017.
He claimed Rose complied with the mandate for months but after reading Scripture and examining his conscience he concluded he would disobey God if he wore it.
He claimed Rose reported to work without a mask from March 1 to May 20, 2022, and asked for accommodation of his beliefs each time.
He claimed the department refused Rose's requests for duty in a guard tower, on the grounds or in mail delivery.
He claimed no one offered Rose a reason why they couldn’t accommodate him.
He claimed the department suspended Rose and defendant Bryan conducted a hearing.
He claimed Bryan recommended discipline and warden Tom Austin discharged Rose.
He claimed the department accommodated employees who objected for reasons they didn’t even state by not enforcing the mandate.
Assistant attorney general DeAnna Beckner moved to dismiss the complaint in May, claiming the department didn’t accommodate Rose’s belief because it wasn’t religious.
She claimed he cited no biblical scripture that specifically addressed masks.
She claimed he relied on a doctor’s testimony at his discharge appeal before the state civil service commission.
“It goes without saying that if it truly is a religious belief, one would rely on their pastor or minister not a MD to bolster that belief," she wrote.
“In sum, no one told Rose he had to bow to a mask.”
She claimed the mask was not a Centralia decision or a department decision.
“The governor mandated through executive order that masks be worn in correctional facilities in the state of Illinois," she wrote.
Her arguments didn’t convince Sison.
“In the Seventh Circuit the test for whether a sincerely held belief qualifies as religious is whether it occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God," he wrote.
He found such beliefs deal with issues of ultimate concern such as afterlife, spirit and soul.
He cited a decision from the Northern Illinois district that, “The court does not concern itself with the truth or validity of religious belief.”
He found government can’t impose a substantial burden on a religious belief or practice without demonstrating that a compelling interest justifies the burden.
He found laws that incidentally burden religion are not subject to strict scrutiny so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.
He quoted the Supreme Court that, “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices of their religious nature.”
He found a law doesn’t apply generally if it invites government to consider reasons for a person’s conduct by providing a mechanism for individual exemptions.
He found a law does not apply generally if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines government interests in a similar way.
He has set trial in September.