UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ NAJEAN LUCKY, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 23-2030 │ v. │ │ LANDMARK MEDICAL OF MICHIGAN, P.C., │ Defendant-Appellee. │ │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:23-cv-11004—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: June 12, 2024

Before: KETHLEDGE, LARSEN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Brendan J. Childress, HURWITZ LAW PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. Patricia Pryor, JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Cincinnati, Ohio, Elyse K. Culberson, JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Najean Lucky sued Landmark Medical of Michigan, P.C., asserting a claim of religious discrimination under Title VII. The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim. We reverse.

We take the allegations in Lucky’s complaint as true. Heyward v. Cooper, 88 F.4th 648, 653 (6th Cir. 2023). Lucky is a non-denominational Christian who believes that she “should not No. 23-2030 Lucky v. Landmark Med. of Mich., P.C. Page 2

have any vaccination enter her body such that her body would be defiled, because her body is a temple.” Compl. ¶12. She also “seeks to make all decisions, especially those regarding vaccination and other medical decisions, through prayer.” Id. ¶11. As relevant here, Lucky “prayed to God specifically about the COVID-19 vaccine” and says that God told her “that she would suffer spiritual harm if she received the COVID-19 vaccine.” Id. ¶21. Lucky therefore has not received the vaccine.

Landmark provides in-home medical care. It recruited Lucky for a management position in February 2022. During an interview for that position, Landmark’s interviewer, Betrice Lavender, at first “spoke positively” about Lucky’s potential and “even discussed her starting salary.” Id. ¶26. But Lavender asked whether Lucky had been vaccinated for Covid-19; Lucky said she had not, because of her religious beliefs. Lavender then “end[ed] the interview[,]” saying that she had rejected ten other candidates because they were unvaccinated for Covid, and that Landmark would not make any accommodations in that regard. Id. ¶¶30-32.

Lucky thereafter brought this suit, claiming that Landmark refused to hire her because of her religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim, stating that Lucky had not alleged that “her religion has a specific tenet or principle that does not permit her to be vaccinated.” Lucky v. Landmark Med. of Mich., P.C., No. 23-cv-11004, 2023 WL 7095085, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2023). Rather, the court said, Lucky had offered “only naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the court concluded, Lucky had not alleged that Landmark discriminate