A federal judge ruled last week that a former Denver employee had not shown the city violated his rights by rejecting his request for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Specifically, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer concluded plaintiff Patrick Higgins had not actually lodged a coherent religious-based objection, as he told the city he did “not consent to anything this form stands for, nor is this considered a submission.”

“The Court finds that those statements render the form anything but a ‘direct and specific’ request for an accommodation,” Brimmer wrote in a Jan. 30 order. “Nor is an employer expected to treat all employee grievances as requests for accommodation, especially where the employer has established clear protocols for accommodation requests and informed its employees of those protocols.”

Higgins was a supply specialist at Denver International Airport. In summer 2021, the city required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or to request an exemption. Denver received 297 requests for religious accommodations, of which it granted 237. 

Higgins, who believed COVID-19 was “nothing different than the flu,” submitted an unsigned request for a religious exemption. In his attached narrative, he wrote that “the devil has servants everywhere” and suggested the vaccine was a tool to “bring down the population to a ‘sustainable’ level.” He also mentioned the “mark of the beast” and compared the city to Nazi soldiers.

“I am using the ‘Request for Religious Exemption/Accommodation Related to COVID-19 Vaccine’ form as merely a means to identify who I am and I do not consent to anything the form stands for, nor is this considered a submission as this is classified as government overreach,” Higgins concluded.

Denver fired him. Higgins then filed a lawsuit alleging the city failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and terminated him in retaliation for requesting a religious accommodation.

Seeking to end the lawsuit in its favor without a trial, Denver argued Higgins had not even sought a proper religious exemption to the vaccine directive.

“In Plaintiff’s statement accompanying the Religious Accommodation Form, he unambiguously stated he was not submitting the request for a religious exemption, he was not signing the form, and he was not participating in the process,” wrote the city attorney’s office, adding that Higgins’ narrative was almost entirely non-religious. “Plaintiff was not granted a religious accommodation because he did not ask for one.”

Higgins countered that there were “disputes about what Plaintiff believes he submitted,” and that Denver never interacted with him to reach a religious accommodation.

Brimmer sided with the city, agreeing Higgins needed to lodge a “sufficiently direct and specific” request.

“Mr. Higgins did not adequately notify Denver that he was seeking an accommodation. Therefore, Mr. Higgins did not engage in a protected activity and cannot prevail,” he wrote.

The case is Higgins v. City and County of Denver.