Mitchel Benish, Relator,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1397

Mitchel Benish,
Relator,

vs.

Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed June 12, 2023
Reversed
Segal, Chief Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 48523192-3

James V. F. Dickey, Douglas P. Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley,
Minnesota (for relator)

Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (respondent
employer)

Keri A. Phillips, Lossom Allen, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Segal, Chief Judge; Worke, Judge; and Jesson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SEGAL, Chief Judge
Relator Mitchel Benish challenges the determination of an unemployment-law
judge (ULJ) that Benish was ineligible for unemployment benefits because his refusal to
2
comply with his employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy constituted employment
misconduct. Benish argues that the evidence supports a finding that his refusal to comply
with the policy was based on a sincerely held religious belief and that the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment requires reversal. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) agrees that the ULJ’s decision should
be reversed.
We conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the ULJ’s finding
that Benish’s vaccine refusal was not based on a sincerely held religious belief. We
therefore reverse the ULJ’s decision denying Benish unemployment benefits.
FACTS
Benish worked as a field adjuster for respondent Berkley Risk Administrators
Company, LLC until February 4, 2022, when he was discharged for failing to comply with
Berkley’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Benish had requested a religious exemption from
the policy. Berkley approved the exemption but notified Benish that it could not
accommodate the exemption because his job required in-person contact with customers.
Benish applied for unemployment benefits, asserting that he had refused the
COVID-19 vaccination because of his religious beliefs. DEED issued a determination of
ineligibility. Benish filed an administrative appeal, and a ULJ held an evidentiary hearing.
In written answers to questions posed by DEED, Benish explained his reasons for
refusing the COVID-19 vaccination:
In accordance with my Christianity, my body is viewed as my
temple. I hold to it my God-given responsibility to protect my
body from unnecessary, unclean, unnatural, and immoral
3
injections. “God created us in his own image.” Genesis 1:27.
I have been gifted an amazing immune system, and any
unnecessary alterations to that would be to defy my God. In
Matthew 9:12, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a
doctor, but the sick.”

Benish stated that his “religion does not ap prove nor proscribe vaccinations” but that
“taking the COVID vaccine would permanently modify the body that God already made
perfect. As guardian of this body, I take it as my personal God-given responsibility to
protect it from unnecessary injections or modifications.” Benish stated that he had not
received any vaccinations as an adult.
At the hearing before the ULJ, Benish explained that he does not deny “necessary
medical treatment” but does not “feel that it’s necessary to get vaccinations when [he’s]
healthy and [his] body . . . naturally fights off infection.” Asked whether he agreed with
the Pope’s encouragement to get the vaccination as an act of love, Benish stated:
I agree that his opinion is that it is an act of love,
but . . . the church also states that, um, vaccine as a rule is not
a moral obligation, and must be voluntary. So you, and anyone
can, can feel free to get the vaccination, it’s not against the, you
know any religion to get the vaccination, um, if you feel that
your body needs the vaccination, feel free to get the
vaccination. I, uh, you know as a healthy, young individual,
that I don’t feel that I need it. And, and, I guess as my, the, the
holder of my body, the temple, I should be the one to make
those decisions.

Following the hearing, the ULJ issued a decision determining that Benish had
committed employment misconduct by failing to comply with Berkley’s COVID-19
vaccination policy and that he was therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. The
ULJ found that “Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that prevented him
4
from getting vaccinated” and that “[h]e chose not to based on his personal beliefs.” The
ULJ explained that the finding was based on Benish’s testimony and emphasized that the
Pope had made statements favoring vaccination, that Benish did not reject other medical
treatments, and that Benish did not explain how the COVID-19 vaccine was “immoral” or
“unclean.” The ULJ reasoned that inconsistencies in Benish’s beliefs “call[ed] into
question the sincerity of his belief” and that Benish’s refusal to receive the COVID-19
vaccine was “most credibly framed as a personal choice and not a sincerely held religious
belief.” Benish sought reconsideration, and the ULJ upheld the decision that Benish was
not eligible for unemployment benefits.
DECISION
We may affirm the decision of a ULJ or remand the case for further proceedings, or
we “may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the [relator] may have
been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are,” among other
things, “in violation of constitutional provisions” or “unsupported by substantial evidence.”
Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2022).
A ULJ’s decision denying unemployment benefits based on an applicant’s refusal
to comply with an employer’s COVID- 19 vaccination policy violates the free-exercise
clause if the applicant’s vaccine refusal was based on sincerely held religious beliefs. See
Thomas v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 716 (1981) (explaining that “a
person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right
and participation in an otherwise available public program”). We will not disturb a ULJ’s
factual finding that an applicant’s vaccine refusal was not based on sincerely held religious
5
beliefs if that finding is supported by substantial evidence. Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., 812
N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn. App. 2012). “We view the ULJ’s factual findings in the light
most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by
the ULJ.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d
452, 460 (Minn. 2016).
Benish and DEED argue that there is not substantial evidence in the record to
support the ULJ’s finding that Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that
precluded him from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.1 We agree. The ULJ found that
Benish made a “personal choice” to refuse the vaccine, but Benish did not testify to any
personal reasons for refusing the vaccine. Instead, he consistently testified that his reason
for refusing it was religious. The ULJ also placed improper weight on inconsistencies in
Benish’s religious beliefs and on the fact that the Pope had encouraged vaccination in
determining that Benish’s beliefs were not sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U.S. at 715-
16 (admonishing that “[c]ourts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs” and noting
that “the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the
members of a religious sect”).
In our recent precedential opinion in Goede, we affirmed a ULJ’s determination that
an applicant for unemployment benefits was ineligible based on her refusal to comply with

1 Even though DEED agrees with Benish that the ULJ’s determination must be reversed,
“we are bound by the statutory grounds for review set out in subdivision 7(d) of Minnesota
Statutes section 268.105 and must apply that statutory standard in assessing whether to
affirm or reverse the ULJ’s determination regardless of the position taken by DEED before
this court.” Goede v. Astra Zeneca Pharms., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, No. A22-1320, slip
op. at 8 (Minn. App. June 12, 2023).
6
her employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Goede, slip op. at 17. The applicant
claimed that her refusal was based on religious beliefs. The ULJ determined, however,
that her reasons for refusing the vaccine were secular, not religious, and that she was
therefore ineligible for benefits. We affirmed the ULJ’s determination because the
substantial evidence in the record supported that the applicant’s reason for rejecting the
vaccine was based on concerns about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy , not religious
beliefs. Id., slip op. at 14-15.
While there are arguable similarities between this case and Goede, the record here
demonstrates that Benish testified consistently that his refusal to receive the vaccine was
based on religious reasons. Consequently, we conclude that the ULJ’s finding—that
Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that precluded him from getting a
COVID-19 vaccine—is unsupported by substantial evidence and must be reversed.
Reversed.