Religious exemptions and human rights: What employers can learn from Drage

Religion in the workplace was at the centre of a recent case in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which provides a number of lessons for employers in both the public and private sector, writes David Chambers.

The recent decision in Drage v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2025] QSC 22 serves as a timely reminder for all employers, not just those in the public sector, on how to lawfully implement and enforce workplace health directives or policies – particularly those involving sensitive issues like religious belief.

While the case arose in the public sector context, its lessons extend well into the private sector.

A workplace dispute over mandatory vaccination

Mr Drage, a former security officer at the Gold Coast Hospital, was subject to Queensland Health’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination directive – Health Employment Directive 12/21 (HED 12/21) (the Directive). He applied for three exemptions under the Directive that concerned justification of him holding a genuine religious belief, which was denied by his employer. Mr Drage was subject to an employment disciplinary process and was terminated on 10 February 2022 for failure to comply with a requirement to be vaccinated.

On 4 March 2022, Mr Drage applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) for reinstatement, alleging unlawful action by his employer and lodging a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission for a contravention of his rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HRA) or the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). His application was dismissed in the QIRC but reinstated on appeal in September 2023.

A hearing proceeded in the QIRC on 19 and 20 December 2023, but Mr Drage sought to transfer the matter to the Queensland Supreme Court (QSC). Leave was granted to discontinue the QIRC proceedings, and Mr Drage filed an application in the QSC on 4 April 2024. In October 2024, the QSC granted Mr Drage an extension of time under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). On 26 March 2025, the QSC dismissed Mr Drage’s application, confirming that the Directive and the process used by his employer to deny his exemption were lawful and reasonable.

What was the main argument?

Mr Drage argued that the vaccination policy was unlawful as it “violated his human right to practice his religion”. However, the court found insufficient evidence that he held a genuine religious belief that prevented him from being vaccinated, as his objections focused on vaccine safety, efficacy, and personal concerns.

The court held that a genuine religious belief must be based on an identifiable doctrine or system, which Mr Drage failed to provide. While the Directive allowed for religious exemptions and accommodated Mr Drage’s human rights, it required evidence to substantiate his belief, which didn’t necessarily require a statement from his church leader to this effect. His reliance on scripture was found insufficient to establish that he held a genuine religious belief on an identifiable doctrine or system that prevented him from complying with the Directive.

Regardless of insufficient evidence, the court held that while individuals are free to hold religious beliefs, they are not automatically entitled to act on them in ways that may harm public or workplace safety, particularly in high-risk environments like healthcare. In other words, Mr Drage’s right to religious belief does not automatically override the rights of others where there is clear evidence of significant public health risk. The court held that limiting Mr Drage’s religious freedom in these circumstances was reasonable and justified.

Key lessons for HR managers and employers

While public sector entities in Queensland must comply with the HRA and state anti-discrimination legislation, similar principles apply for the private sector under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), federal anti-discrimination legislation, and work health and safety laws.

Although the current case was decided under public sector law, key lessons apply for employers managing workplace policies that may conflict with or affect employees’ personal beliefs.

1. Any workplace directive must be lawful, fair, and reasonable

To dismiss an employee for non-compliance, the directive (e.g., mandatory vaccination) must have a clear legal or safety justification. This could include client or industry expectations or government health guidance.

The directive should also permit employees to fairly apply for exemptions on medical or religious grounds, which assists if challenged.

2. Respect religious beliefs, but request evidence

Employers must be cautious when considering dismissing or undermining an employee’s religious claim. It is reasonable and lawful to ask for evidence of a genuine religious belief that is a recognised system of faith, as opposed to a personal objection. This is consistent with existing protections under the Fair Work Act and anti-discrimination laws.

3. Document the decision-making process

Just as public entities must consider human rights, private companies should document how they assess exemption requests, especially when declining them. Show that you have considered reasonable alternatives, balanced risks, and consistently applied fair policies.

4. Procedural fairness is crucial

Ensure the employee has a chance to be heard, provide supporting material, and seek clarification if needed before making a decision. Even where an exemption is declined, this reduces legal risk and strengthens your position if challenged.

Final thoughts: Human rights are a factor, not a trump card

Although the HRA does not apply to private companies, the broader principle under Commonwealth legislation remains. There is space for genuine religious exemptions to employment directives and policies, and irrespective of sufficient evidence, a person’s practice of religious beliefs does not come at the expense of safety to others.

David Chambers is a special counsel at Holding Redlich.