Unvaccinated Status Is Not a “Regarded-As” Disability and Neutral COVID-19 Safety Protocols Do Not Trigger a Religious-Accommodation Duty

Commentary on Pajer, Cribb, Gibbons & Schmidt v. Disney Parks, Experiences and Products, Inc., et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit – Nos. 24-11146/47/48/60 (decided 2 July 2025)

1. Introduction

The consolidated appeal of Adam Pajer, Stephen Cribb, Steven Gibbons and Seth Schmidt (“the Employees”) against several Disney-affiliated companies (“Disney”) presented the Eleventh Circuit with the first full-scale, appellate review of post-mandate COVID-19 workplace litigation. The Employees were terminated after refusing to comply with Disney’s Augmented Health & Safety Protocols—masking, distancing and isolation rules applied to staff who either remained unvaccinated or declined to disclose vaccination status once Florida law had forced Disney to suspend its earlier “vaccinate-or-terminate” policy.

The Employees alleged (i) religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Florida’s Civil Rights Act (FCRA), and (ii) disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Middle District of Florida dismissed all counts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, issuing a precedential clarification on three novel, pandemic-era questions:

1. Whether an employer’s neutral safety protocols aimed at unvaccinated workers impose a duty to provide religious accommodation when employees never identify a religious conflict with those protocols;
2. Whether an employer that treats unvaccinated workers as potential COVID-19 vectors thereby “regards” them as disabled under the ADA; and
3. How Rule 15 and Rule 16 interact when plaintiffs seek leave to amend after the scheduling-order deadline.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Disparate Treatment & Failure to Accommodate (Title VII / FCRA) – Claims failed because the Employees never alleged a religious conflict with the Augmented Protocols, nor did they request an accommodation from those protocols.
• Disparate Impact (Title VII / FCRA) – Complaints lacked facts indicating that Christians, or any religion, were disproportionately affected by the protocols.
• ADA Discrimination (“Regarded-As”) – Being unvaccinated, or treated as a possible future COVID-19 case, is not a current or past impairment and thus not a protected disability. Circuit precedent (EEOC v. STME, LLC) bars “future-impairment” theories.
• Retaliation (Title VII, FCRA, ADA) – Without a reasonable, good-faith belief that the protocols were unlawful, employee objections were not statutorily protected activity; ADA retaliation was abandoned on appeal.
• Leave to Amend – Request embedded in an opposition brief, filed after the scheduling-order deadline, did not satisfy Rule 15 or the “good-cause” requirement of Rule 16.

The Court therefore affirmed dismissal in full.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 786 (2015) – clarified Title VII disparate-treatment theories based on religion.
2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) & Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) – plausibility pleading standard.
3. EEOC v. STME, LLC, 938 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2019) – no ADA coverage for anticipated future illnesses; central to rejecting the “regarded-as” argument.
4. Joe’s Stone Crab, Inc., 220 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000) – elements of a disparate-impact claim.
5. Bailey v. Metro Ambulance, 992 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2021) – dual theories of religious discrimination: traditional disparate treatment vs. failure-to-accommodate.
6. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp., 314 F.3d 541 (11th Cir. 2002) – proper method for seeking leave to amend.
7. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024) – cited by Employees but distinguished because it concerned discriminatory transfers, not retaliation.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Title VII / FCRA Religious Claims

Traditional Disparate Treatment. To survive dismissal, plaintiffs had to allege that Disney intentionally treated religious employees less favorably than similarly situated non-religious employees. The Court could not infer such intent because the protocols applied universally to anyone unvaccinated or unwilling to attest, regardless of religious motive. Merely having a religious objection to vaccination did not transform a facially neutral safety rule into religious discrimination.

Failure-to-Accommodate. The core element is a conflict between sincerely held belief and an employment requirement. The Employees’ only pleaded conflict concerned Disney’s suspended vaccine mandate, not the protocols actually in force when they were fired. Without requesting an accommodation from the live protocols, they could not plausibly allege that Disney failed to accommodate them.

Disparate Impact. Plaintiffs offered no factual allegations—let alone statistical indicators—that religious adherents were disproportionately unvaccinated relative to secular employees. The Court emphasized that litigation cannot proceed on “naked assertions” that “a large proportion” of affected workers were Christian.

3.2.2 ADA “Regarded-As” Disability

The ADA covers (a) current impairments, (b) past impairments, and (c) situations where an employer mistakenly believes an employee has such an impairment. Binding precedent (STME) disallows coverage where the employer merely fears the employee might develop a disease in the future. Treating unvaccinated workers as potential virus vectors, the Court explained, concerns a prospective risk, not a present condition. Hence, there is no “disability,” actual or perceived.

3.2.3 Retaliation

Objecting to company policy is protected only if the employee has a reasonable, good-faith belief that the policy violates a statute. Because the underlying discrimination theories were implausible, any belief that the Augmented Protocols were unlawful could not be objectively reasonable.

3.2.4 Denial of Leave to Amend

Rule 16(b) scheduling orders may be modified “only for good cause.” Plaintiffs missed the amendment deadline and buried their request inside a response brief, so the district court correctly required—yet did not receive—“good cause.” The opinion reiterates that Rule 15’s lenient standard yields to Rule 16’s stricter, deadline-enforcing regime once a scheduling order is in place.

3.3 Potential Impact

• COVID-19 Litigation. The ruling will substantially narrow religious and ADA claims arising from mask, distancing, or disclosure protocols—especially in states where vaccine mandates are prohibited.
• “Regarded-As” Theory. By extending STME to pandemic facts, the Court signalled that future-infection fears, even when tied to controversial health measures, do not create ADA liability.
• Employer Guidance. Employers may continue requiring status disclosure and imposing differential safety rules so long as (i) the rules are neutrally applied to all who refuse vaccination and (ii) any religious objections to the rules themselves are processed.
• Pleading Standards. Plaintiffs must connect the dots—show actual religious conflict with the rules in force, comparable non-religious employees treated better, or data supporting impact. Conclusory invocations of “Christian” status or “perceived disability” will be dismissed early.
• Civil Procedure. The case is a caution to litigants: request leave to amend by motion, before the Rule 16 deadline, or be prepared to demonstrate explicit good cause.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Disparate Treatment

Alleging the employer intended to discriminate—plaintiff must show unequal treatment compared to similarly situated co-workers of another group.

Disparate Impact

Alleging a neutral policy that in practice hurts one protected group more than others—requires concrete data, not just conjecture.

Reasonable Accommodation (Religion)

Employees must identify a conflict between a belief and a workplace rule, then request an adjustment. The duty to accommodate is triggered only after that request.

“Regarded-As” Disability

Employer wrongly believes employee has a present physical or mental impairment. Fear of a future illness does not qualify.

Rule 15 vs. Rule 16

Rule 15 favors liberal amendments; Rule 16’s scheduling order imposes a higher “good-cause” bar once the amendment deadline passes.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision firmly sets the post-pandemic boundaries of Title VII, FCRA and ADA liability:

1. Neutral COVID-19 safety protocols—even if burdensome—do not amount to religious discrimination unless employees both articulate a religious conflict with those specific protocols and seek an accommodation.
2. Unvaccinated status, or treatment as a potential future COVID-19 carrier, is not a disability under the ADA.
3. Employee objections to neutral safety policies are not protected from retaliation absent an objectively reasonable belief the policies are unlawful.
4. Litigants must comply with Rule 16 scheduling orders; casual mentions of amendment are insufficient.

These holdings collectively provide employers with clearer guidance and likely usher in earlier resolutions of similar COVID-19-related employment suits, while signaling to plaintiffs’ counsel the evidentiary and procedural rigor required to survive a motion to dismiss.