The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Andrew Perry, a former nursing student at Dordt University, who claimed religious discrimination after his request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption was denied. The court's ruling, filed on October 23, 2026, affirms the lower court's decision that Perry did not have a sincerely held religious objection to the vaccine, which is a requirement under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). This case highlights the complexities surrounding religious exemptions in educational settings, especially in the context of public health mandates.
Perry's lawsuit stems from a dispute with Dordt University regarding a COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed by clinical partners of the university. Perry argued that his religious beliefs prevented him from receiving the vaccine, but the university contended that his objections were not genuinely religious but rather influenced by his parents' views. The case raises significant questions about the intersection of personal beliefs, parental influence, and institutional policies in higher education.
The Iowa Supreme Court's decision comes after Perry appealed a lower court ruling that dismissed his claim. The district court found that Perry's objections to the vaccine were not based on his own religious beliefs but rather stemmed from pressure exerted by his parents, particularly his mother, who threatened to withdraw financial support for his education if he received the vaccine. The court's findings included detailed testimony from Perry and evidence regarding his family's stance on the vaccine.
Background
Andrew Perry was an undergraduate nursing student at Dordt University when he requested a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine, which was required for clinical rotations at certain medical facilities. Perry claimed that his religious beliefs would be violated if he were mandated to take the vaccine. However, Dordt University denied his exemption request, leading Perry to file a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination under the ICRA.
The case was initially heard in the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, where Judge Robert D. Tiefenthaler presided. The district court conducted a thorough examination of the evidence, including Perry's own testimony. Ultimately, the court found that Perry's objections were not genuinely religious in nature but rather influenced by his parents' opposition to the vaccine. The court noted that Perry had previously expressed no issue with the vaccine and had even volunteered to help administer it.
The Ruling
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously to affirm the district court's dismissal of Perry's lawsuit. The court stated, "The student could not prevail under the ICRA without proving a prima facie case of religious discrimination." The court emphasized that Perry failed to demonstrate a sincerely held religious objection to the vaccine, a crucial requirement for his claim under the ICRA.
The court's opinion highlighted that the district court had properly assessed Perry's credibility and the sincerity of his religious beliefs. The ruling noted, "The court found that the student’s claim was not credible. It was really his parents who opposed the vaccine, not the student." This determination was based on substantial evidence presented during the trial, including Perry's own statements regarding his motivations for seeking the exemption.
Impact
The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling has significant implications for students seeking religious exemptions from health mandates in educational settings. It reinforces the requirement that individuals must demonstrate a sincerely held religious belief to qualify for such exemptions under the ICRA. This case may influence how educational institutions handle similar requests in the future, particularly in light of public health emergencies.
Additionally, the ruling underscores the importance of individual agency in religious beliefs, especially when influenced by family dynamics. The court's decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving claims of religious discrimination in educational contexts, particularly those related to health mandates.
What’s Next
While Perry's case has been dismissed, it is unclear whether he plans to seek further legal remedies or if there are related cases pending that could challenge the court's ruling. The court's decision, however, sets a clear standard for future claims of religious discrimination in similar contexts.