9th Circuit Decides Religious Accommodation Case

September 26, 2025

Important Takeaways: In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court of the United States heightened the standard required for employers to escape Title VII accommodation liability. Employers must now show that the accommodation would create an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” objective hardship on their business operations.

Facts: In response to the wave of increased exposure to COVID-19’s Delta variant in the summer of 2021, Washington Governor Hay Inslee issued Proclamation 21-14, which required healthcare workers to be vaccinated. Additionally, the proclamation advised businesses and city governments to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and its Washington state equivalent, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Specifically, the proclamation reminded businesses that healthcare workers are not required to get vaccinated if they are entitled to an accommodation based on a sincerely held religious belief. However, the accommodations can be denied if they would cause undue hardship on the business’s operations.

Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue (SRFR) informed its employees of the vaccination requirement and the exemption on religious grounds. Soon after, 46 of SRFR’s 192 firefighters requested exemptions. SRFR and the employee union engaged in negotiations regarding the vaccination requirement. The parties agreed to an MOU that modified the CBA to provide alternative options to the employees if it was determined they could not be accommodated in their healthcare roles. The alternatives included the following:

1. Unvaccinated employees could use their accrued paid leave while remaining employed.
2. Once that leave is exhausted, employees could take a one-year leave of absence without pay.
3. If the employee decides to leave SRFR’s employment, they will be added to the disability rehire list, which allows them to return to SRFR with their original rank, seniority status, and benefits if they return within 2 years.
4. The employees could return to work whenever the governor’s proclamation was updated or removed.

In October 2021, SRFR determined that they could not accommodate the firefighters without imposing an undue hardship on their operations. Because firefighters interact with the public, SRFR did not have alternative positions available for those seeking exemptions, nor could it facilitate the firefighters’ suggested accommodations, including wearing masks, testing, and maintaining social distancing. Soon after, SRFR approved all 46 requests from firefighters to use their accrued paid leave.

In May 2022, after the Omicron variant subsided, SRFR notified unvaccinated employees that they could either remain on leave or return to their patient-care roles if they followed the applicable safety guidelines. Most firefighters returned; some did not.

In November 2022, 8 SRFR firefighters filed Title VII and WLAD claims in federal district court. The firefighters sought a declaration that a leave of absence falls short of lawful reasonable accommodation. In other words, they wanted a court to rule that SRFR’s policy violated the law and should not have been implemented during the 7-month period from 2021 to 2022.

Court holdings: Under Title VII, employees can receive accommodations to workplace policies if complying with those policies would violate their religious beliefs. However, an employer can refuse to accommodate the employee if the accommodation would create an undue hardship on the employer’s business operations.

The employer may refute an accommodation claim by stating that providing the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Undue means any “requisite burden, privation, or adversity must rise to an ‘excessive’ or ‘unjustifiable’ level.” Hardship is more severe than a ‘mere burden’ imposed on the employer. Additionally, the Groff decision mandated courts take into account “all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of [an] employer.”

The lower court found that accommodating the 46 firefighters, 25% of the entire workforce, would have imposed an undue hardship on SRFR because unvaccinated firefighters engaging with the public would increase the spread of COVID-19 and hinder SRFR’s ability to serve the public, creating an adversity that rose to an unjustifiable level.

The firefighters appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court. Granting accommodations to the firefighters would have imposed an unjustifiable level of hardship on SRFR in the form of health and safety costs, operational burdens, and financial costs.

SRFR was concerned with the health and safety costs of both its employees and the public they serve. Of the 18,000 emergency calls that SRFR responded to in 2021, 85% were for medical services. SRFR’s firefighters are all EMT-certified and are expected to administer lifesaving measures to the most vulnerable of citizens. This information, combined with expert testimony from a respected medical doctor showing the effectiveness of vaccines and shortcomings of masks and social distancing, demonstrated an undue hardship.

The Ninth Circuit also found an undue hardship associated with the operational burdens imposed on SRFR. The court acknowledged that a fire station relies on labor more than any other asset. The court further stated that SRFR made an informed decision to deny the accommodations because allowing unvaccinated employees to mingle with the rest of the workforce would put a significant number of employees at risk and would likely lead to SRFR being unable to serve its community.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit ruled that accommodating the unvaccinated firefighters was not a viable option for SRFR, as SRFR was likely to lose a $400,000 service contract with the Department of Corrections. The DOC facility required visitors to be vaccinated before entering the prison. The Ninth Circuit referred to this dilemma as “textbook economic hardship.” Thus, SRFR provided sufficient facts to show that accommodating the firefighters would have resulted in undue hardship.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of SRFR.

What this means: The Groff decision heightened the standard required to demonstrate that a religious accommodation creates an undue hardship on business operations. The new standard requires employers to produce facts that demonstrate an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” objective hardship on the employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment action.

Petersen v. SRFR, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 2, 2025. Read it here.

Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.