Vivit, the former executive assistant to the Museum’s chief executive officer, alleges she was fired after recording a video in her office encouraging Christian worship. The Museum argued the complaint should be dismissed because Vivit did not inform the Museum of her religious beliefs before recording the video, making it impossible for the Museum to discriminate based on religion.
The Northern District of Illinois, in an order by Judge Sara L. Ellis, rejected that argument. The court held that Vivit’s claim is one for disparate treatment, not failure to accommodate, and therefore she need only allege that the Museum terminated her because of her religion.
Vivit alleges she is a “professed Christian and a sincere, devout believer in God.” In October 2024, she recorded a video in her office at the Museum while the building was closed. The video encouraged fellow Christian believers about public, corporate worship.
Vivit sent the video to Legacy Ministry College, which posted it on YouTube. She did not introduce herself as a Museum employee or reference the Museum in the video, and the background was generic.
About a month later, CEO Mike Delfini and HR Director Cheryl Crawford confronted Vivit about the video. Crawford stated the video did not align with the Museum’s vision, values, and mission, and could reflect poorly on the Museum given Vivit’s role.
Crawford and Delfini instructed Vivit to take her belongings and go home, and to take down the video. Vivit contacted Legacy Ministry College, which removed the video. The Museum terminated her employment the following day.
The Museum moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing Vivit failed to plead the prima facie elements of a failure-to-accommodate claim. Specifically, the Museum contended Vivit did not call her religious observance to the employer’s attention before the adverse action.
The Museum also attached a declaration from Delfini and its Employee Manual, arguing Vivit violated company policy by recording the video without permission. The court declined to consider these documents, noting they were not referenced in the complaint and did not unambiguously govern Vivit’s employment at the time of termination.
Turning to the substantive argument, the court distinguished between disparate treatment and failure to accommodate claims. Under the disparate treatment framework, a plaintiff need only provide enough detail to give fair notice of the claim and that the employer caused concrete injury by holding the worker’s religion against him.
The court found Vivit met this standard. She alleged she recorded a video expressing her Christian beliefs, the Museum learned of the video, and the Museum fired her because of the Christian content.
Although the Museum argued Vivit did not provide notice of her beliefs before termination, the court noted she shared those beliefs in the video itself. The Museum’s subsequent indication that the content did not align with its values supports the inference of religious animus.
The court acknowledged the Museum’s policy violation argument but stated it appears outside the complaint and remains a question for a later date. At the pleading stage, the employer’s allegedly legitimate reason for taking adverse action is irrelevant.
Vivit may face difficulty proving her discrimination claim at summary judgment, but her allegations suffice to allow her to proceed to discovery. The Museum must file its answer to the complaint by May 1, 2026.