Liberty Counsel will present oral argument to the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal (DCA) in Marin v. Nemours Children’s Hospital on September 2, 2026. The court invited Liberty Counsel to file an amicus brief in this case. The court also granted Liberty Counsel oral argument in this case of first impression. The case presents to the court a central question about the statutory interpretation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) regarding discrimination in employment because of religion versus the federal Title VII employment law.

The case centers on whether Nemours Children’s Hospital violated the FCRA in 2021 when it fired former employee, HVAC Technician Christian Marin, for not getting the COVID-19 shot due to his pro-life Christian beliefs regarding the use of aborted fetal cell lines associated with the shot’s creation. The Florida Commission on Human Relations interpreted the FCRA like the federal Title VII law by reading into the statute an “undue hardship” defense. The commission determined Marin’s religious-based refusal presented an “undue hardship” on the company and ruled his termination did not violate the FCRA.

Liberty Counsel contends that the commission used the wrong legal framework in its decision. In a January 2026 amicus brief, Liberty Counsel argued the FCRA is stricter than federal Title VII making it unlawful for an employer in Florida to discriminate against an individual “because of” religion, and does not contain Title VII’s express “undue hardship” provision in its text. When the discrimination is intentional, there is no defense under the FCRA.

In 1972, the federal Title VII law was amended to weaken religious protections by providing an “undue hardship” defense to employers. In other words, an employer can discriminate because of religion if the employer proves it would be an “undue hardship” to accommodate religion. This lessens the protections for religion.

The Florida legislature rejected the federal amendment to Title VII, refusing to adopt the “undue hardship” defense when the FCRA was originally passed in 1977 and then amended in 1992. In Florida, if the discrimination is “because of” religion, there is no “undue hardship” defense, thus placing religion on the same platform as every other protected category.

“The FCRA and Title VII are materially different and thus require separate legal frameworks,” reads the amicus brief. “The FCRA establishes a straightforward anti-religious discrimination framework without an ‘undue hardship’ defense.”

Previously, Florida DCAs have construed FCRA claims under the Title VII framework due to it being partially patterned after Title VII. For instance, in a 2009 case regarding a restaurant employer terminating a cashier over a medical condition, the Florida Fourth DCA stated “courts construe FCRA in conformity with Title VII.” 

However, the Florida Sixth DCA is a newer appellate court established by the state’s legislature in January 2023. The Sixth DCA has expressly noted that legal decisions from the state’s First through the Fifth DCAs may be applied in its decisions, but are not binding.

In one of its early opinions, CED Capital Holdings 2000 EB, LLC v. CTCW-Berkshire Club LLC, the court stated that in absence of a Florida Supreme Court decision, “the Sixth District Court of Appeal is not bound by the precedent of any of its sister courts.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Marin v. Nemours Children’s Hospital is a first impression case with the potential to set lasting precedent that could strengthen Florida’s religious protections in the workplace. The case presents the novel question of whether the Florida Civil Rights Act should be construed as having Title VII’s statutory ‘undue hardship’ standard even though that language was omitted from the statute. Blending Title VII’s ‘undue hardship’ framework into FCRA was an error because the Florida legislature deliberately omitted that specific language. The legislature chose a simpler, more protective standard. Nemours Children’s Hospital violated the Florida Civil Rights Act for classifying employees by religious beliefs and firing every employee whose religious beliefs were based on aborted fetal cells associated in some way with the COVID-19 shot.”