Eight firefighters in Snohomish, Washington, requested a religious accommodation for the COVID-19 vaccine that the fire department issued. The firefighters noted that they could employ all the ordinary safety precautions, such as masking, testing, and social distancing.
The Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue (SRFR) alleged that an accommodation would put excessive health and safety risk on the fire station.
Attorney Cliff Martin at First Liberty Institute said the firefighters also pointed to nearby departments that granted the accommodation.
“The fire department refused and said you must get the vaccine or face termination," states Martin. "They chose not to get the vaccine, they were put on indefinite leave, and they went to nearby fire departments and other jobs.”
The other fire departments granted the men their accommodation. In one firefighter's case, he found himself working at the same locations as the Snohomish firefighters that were vaccinated.
“These firefighters were serving shoulder to shoulder with unvaccinated personnel, and yet the fire department said, 'No, we're not going to accommodate you,'" says Martin. "So really, the problem was that this was an irrational refusal to accommodate religious employees with the accommodation they requested, and the justification just doesn't hold up to scrutiny."
Even so, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled with the original district court which sided with the fire department. First Liberty, along with two other law firms, is asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.
The Ninth Circuit along with the First and Sixth Circuits have ruled in favor of these “undue hardship” cases if the employer has reasonable concern that hardship will occur. Meanwhile the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits ruled that there has to be proof of undue hardship from an accommodation. This puts the appeals circuits in a 3-3 split.
According to First Liberty’s petition, this is “the ideal vehicle to resolve a consequential 3-3 circuit split over whether an employer must show actual undue hardship, or mere reasonable concern of undue hardship, before denying a Title VII religious accommodation. That question is important, recurring, and squarely presented.”
