Adherent of religion that believes Satan created the earth allowed to continue suit against Boston College for Covid-related firing

A federal judge ruled yesterday that a fired landscaper at Boston College can continue his case that his 2021 firing for refusing Covid-19 shots violated his religious rights under the First Amendment.

Boston College had asked US District Court Judge Julia Kobick to throw out Avenir Agaj's First Amendment case, arguing he failed to provide legitimate religious or medical reasons for refusing the shots.

However, Kobick did agree with BC to dismiss Agaj's charge that BC also violated his rights to refuse shots on medical grounds, ruling that, unlike with religious beliefs, the Constitution does not provide for medical rights, such as Agaj's professed belief in the superiority of "ethnobotany" or "folk medicine" in protecting his health more than modern medicine. She similarly dismissed his charge that BC's firing was in retaliation for his attempt to practice his religion or because he is a member of a "legal immigrant minority," because he failed to detail that claim in a complaint to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Agaj says he is a follower of Bogomil, a gnostic religion started in 10th-century Bulgaria by a priest who believed God had two sons, Jesus and Satan, and that Satan created the earth and ruled it until Jesus's resurrection. Bogomil followers believed that in addition to the world in general, Satan created humans in particular, although God created their souls, and they rejected the consumption of meat and wine and other substances considered impure.

The sect was condemned as heretics by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches, but persisted until the 15th century when it was finally wiped out. Or was it?

In his self-filed complaint, Agaj said he follows Bogomil tenets and that includes a refusal to "take anything that risk[ed] [his] health and spiritual wellbeing," that his body is a temple and that his religion commands him to "keep it pure [and] free from filth."

Boston College said that Agaj's initial request for a religious exemption did not even specify which religion he belonged to, let alone which of its tenets he believed he would violate by getting vaccinated:

As Agaj’s exemption requests do not describe his religious beliefs or principles in any meaningful way, how they relate to vaccines generally, or the COVID-19 vaccine specifically, he has failed to plead that his employer’s vaccination requirement conflicted with a bona fide religious practice and his claims must be dismissed.

But Kobick said Agaj then filed an update to his request that provided enough of a religious basis for her or, ultimately, a jury, to consider his case:

Absent an exemption, Agaj could not comply with Boston College's vaccine requirement without transgressing the religious beliefs he identifies in his complaint. Agaj chose not to be vaccinated and was terminated in direct response to that choice. Indeed, Boston College's termination letter stated that Agaj was "involuntarily separated" from his job because he did not "provid[e] proof of vaccination as required by the University and therefore [did] not meet" Boston College's "condition for employment" that he be vaccinated against COVID-19. Agaj has made a prima facie showing that his bona fide religious beliefs and practice were the reason for the adverse employment action against him. Boston College's motion to dismiss will, accordingly, be denied as to Agaj's religious discrimination claims.

In addition to dismissing some of his charges against BC, Kobick also denied Agaj's demand that she recuse herself from his case because she gave BC more time to file a response to his complaint and for failing to immediately call for assembling a jury to hear his case. That's not evidence of bias, just using a judge's prerogatives in managing a case, she said.

The orders to which Agaj objects would not lead a reasonable member of the public to question my impartiality. They were made in the ordinary course of case management and are not evidence of bias.