A federal judge allowed a case that claims Michigan officials religiously discriminated against a Christian working at the University of Michigan Health-West to proceed.
The case was brought by First Liberty Institute.
Medical professional at the University of Michigan Health-West Valerie Kloosterman was fired after seeking a religious accommodation that would allow her to avoid gender-affirming statements.
Kayla Toney, a lawyer for First Liberty said, “It is intolerant of employers to demand that medical professionals like Valerie abandon their religious beliefs in order to remain employed.”
“We are pleased that the court recognized that our claims that Michigan Health violated Valerie’s constitutional rights and federal employment law have merit and that her lawsuit should proceed. Employers in our nation need to take notice that religious employees cannot be discriminated against because of their beliefs.”
According to U.S. District Judge Jane Becker, Kloosterman’s “exemplary” work record is an example of how her “vibrant faith informs how she does her work as a medical professional.”
“The court ruled that Michigan Health officials demonstrated ‘hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated her objection to the training module.’ The court cited Kennedy v. Bremerton School District for the principle that ‘official expressions of hostility’ violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” a statement from First Liberty read.
“The court also found merit in Ms. Kloosterman’s Equal Protection and Title VII claims, because she showed that University of Michigan Health accommodated the preferences of other providers yet refused to accommodate her religious beliefs. And the court rejected Michigan Health officials’ attempt to rely on qualified immunity, finding that Ms. Kloosterman “sufficiently alleged at this stage that each Individual Defendant violated her . . . clearly established freedom of religion and Equal Protection rights.”
Reporting from World Net Daily:
The judge noted Kloosterman's reputation was such that patients requested her, and were willing to wait for an appointment with her, and that she "gladly served people of all beliefs and backgrounds and was committed to giving the best possible care to all her patients." Further, her contract said specifically that the hospital "shall not have the right to direct [her] to take or omit any act which conflicts with such medical judgment in the care of patients."
