Background
Five Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife employees sought religious exemptions from a state COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The Department accepted that their objections rested on sincerely held religious beliefs and granted the exemptions, but concluded that the employees could not remain in their existing positions because their work sometimes had to be performed in the physical presence of others.
The Department invited the employees to explore reassignment while warning that opportunities might be limited. None completed the reassignment process, and the Department terminated them. They sued under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, among other federal and state claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, reasoning that the Department had offered a reassignment process in which the employees failed to participate fully.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit held that merely offering access to a reassignment process carrying only a limited possibility of accommodation did not establish a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law. Under Title VII, an employer must make a good-faith effort to propose an accommodation that eliminates the religious conflict and reasonably preserves the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. An employee’s corresponding duty to cooperate arises only after the employer suggests a possible reasonable accommodation.
The record presented a factual dispute over whether the Department met that obligation. Its historical data showed reassignment in only 17 of 122 religious-accommodation requests, while providing no details about whether those placements resolved religious conflicts or preserved employment conditions. The court therefore reversed summary judgment on Anderson’s, DeBoer’s, and Frady’s Title VII claims and all five employees’ state-law discrimination claims. It affirmed judgment against Cherry and Lopez on their Title VII claims because Cherry failed to exhaust administrative remedies and Lopez sued outside the 90-day deadline.
The court also affirmed summary judgment on all federal and state constitutional claims. It held that the employees forfeited their official-capacity sovereign-immunity argument, that Washington law supplied no damages action for their asserted state constitutional privacy violation, and that the district court permissibly retained supplemental jurisdiction. The panel further upheld the exclusion of three proposed experts and the protective order barring an exceptionally broad Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
Key Takeaways
- An invitation to enter a reassignment process is not necessarily a reasonable religious accommodation under Title VII.
- The employer must propose an accommodation that resolves the religious conflict and reasonably preserves the employee’s employment status, or prove that accommodation would impose an undue hardship.
- An employee’s duty to cooperate is triggered only after the employer suggests a possible reasonable accommodation.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a concrete accommodation from a process that offers only the possibility of one. Employers in the Ninth Circuit cannot obtain summary judgment merely by showing that they invited an employee to discuss reassignment; they need evidence that they made a good-faith effort to offer an arrangement capable of resolving the religious conflict while reasonably preserving employment conditions.
The ruling also underscores that procedural defects can independently defeat Title VII claims even when related state-law accommodation claims remain viable.