CNA Staff, Jul 3, 2025 /
11:48 am
A federal appeals court has revived a Catholic worker’s lawsuit against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York over the bank’s having fired her for refusing to take a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in its Wednesday ruling partially reversed the findings of a district court, which had dismissed former Federal Reserve executive assistant Jeanette Diaz’s lawsuit against the bank over her 2022 dismissal.
Diaz had argued that the bank’s policy requiring vaccination against COVID-19 would violate her Catholic faith, citing her opposition to vaccines “created using human cell lines derived from abortion.”
The worker had asked her pastor in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, to sign a letter on her behalf affirming her refusal on religious grounds, though her pastor “refused” to do so, citing Church teaching. The Vatican in 2020 said that it is “morally acceptable” to receive COVID-19 vaccines produced using cell lines from aborted fetuses when no alternative is available.
Diaz nevertheless sought an exemption as a Catholic on grounds of an objection of conscience. Yet the district court ruled against her, claiming that she had failed to show her objection “was based in sincerely held religious beliefs” and pointing to alleged evidence that her opposition was motivated by secular and not religious concerns.
The court had also held that Diaz at times acted inconsistently in her religious belief, such as in taking medication in other cases without first affirming that it was made without using aborted fetal cells.
In reversing the lower court’s order, the appeals court said a jury could infer that Diaz “has both secular and religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccines.” Such distinctions should be made by a jury and not a court, the appeals ruling said.
Regarding Diaz’s alleged inconsistency, the appeals court cited precedent holding that “a sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance.” The court again stipulated that a jury should be allowed to determine the plaintiff’s motivations.
`;
}
(async function() {
const most_read_url = ‘/most-read-api’;
var historyList = document.getElementById(‘mostread-QkXaxsXZAE’);
fetch(most_read_url).then((result) => {
var json_result = result.json();
json_result.then((data) => {
historyList.innerHTML = ”;
data.forEach((item, i) => {
var html = render(i, item.url, item.title);
historyList.innerHTML += html;
if ((i + 1) >= 5) {
return false;
}
});
});
}).catch((err) => {
console.error(err);
});
})();