A former Penn State employee who worked remotely from home has filed a discrimination lawsuit against the university, claiming he was fired after seeking a religious exemption from COVID-19 testing in 2021 and 2022.

Zachary Rackovan, who had been a Penn State multi-media specialist since 2014 and worked from home since 2016, says he was granted an exemption from the university’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement in the fall of 2021 but was still required to receive weekly testing, despite not working on campus.

Rackovan challenged the decision, stating that submitting to the testing conflicted with his beliefs as an evangelical Christian, “basing his explanations on Scripture, explicit religious reasoning and a letter from his pastor,” according to the lawsuit filed Friday in the U.S. Middle District Court of Pennsylvania.

“This request was grounded in his religious belief that to comply with the weekly testing was no less than [to] participate in lies and deceit and mental illness in contravention to the calling of his faith,” attorney Caleb Acker wrote.

Rackovan informed the university that if he complied, he “would not just be disappointed in myself, I would quite literally be compromising my relationship with God, and my eternal salvation.”

He also argued that because his job did not require him to be on campus, weekly testing was unnecessary.

“Even by Penn State’s guidelines, the consequences of a positive test would not result in any changes to my daily routine; I would just continue working from home,” Rackovan wrote in a request to the university. “I have worked as a fully remote employee for years from the privacy of my home office and have no need to be on campus.”

The university denied Rackovan’s request and informed him in email from its Affirmative Action Office that he was required to do “weekly testing and masking [where appropriate] based on [his] religious accommodation request to the vaccine mandate.” The email added that university policy was for all employees to be tested for COVID-19, regardless of work location.

Rackovan opposed the denial, reiterating that it violated his religious beliefs and that exempting him would cause no hardship for the university because his remote status meant the consequences of a positive or negative test were the same.

After Rackovan refused to comply with the weekly testing, he was informed on March 4, 2022, that he was at risk of termination.

The university, the lawsuit alleges, began to “fast-track” Rackovan’s termination, citing his noncompliance with COVID-19 testing as a “performance” issue.

Rackovan was fired on March 18, 2022, but three days later, the university announced it would be pausing all mandatory COVID-19 testing.

“…[T]he University’s denial of any exemption for Mr. Rackovan is even more unreasonable due to the fact that the University dropped its testing requirement of its own volition, three days after terminating Mr. Rackovan,” Acker wrote. “This shows that the testing requirement was not necessary at that point in 2022.”

In response to a complaint filed by Rackovan with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Penn State said that all employees were required to test as part of efforts to protect the health and safety of the university community and that Rackovan was fired for “insubordination” for refusing to comply. Rackovan’s personnel file contained no previous disciplinary records, according to a PHRC finding of probable cause.

The PHRC determined that there was probable cause to believe Penn State discriminated and retaliated against Rackovan. It recommended that Rackovan be restored to his position and given back pay and benefits.

After Penn State refused an administrative conciliation process, Rackovan received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Rackovan’s lawsuit includes three counts of religious discrimination and two counts of retaliation. He is seeking back pay for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, punitive damages, legal fees, a requirement imposing religious freedom sensitivity training, and a declaratory judgment stating that the university discriminated against him on the basis of religious belief.