Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling for Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue (SRFR), finding it didn’t violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it refused to excuse its firefighters from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on their sincerely held religious beliefs (Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, No. 24-1044, 2025 WL 2503128 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025)).
The SRFR had denied these requests because it was unable to identify a reasonable accommodation that would allow the firefighters to perform their jobs without imposing an undue hardship on the SRFR. In its decision, the Ninth Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent religious accommodation decision in Groff v. Dejoy, providing employers with a good example of how courts look at religious accommodation and undue hardship determinations under federal law.
The SRFR provides fire suppression and emergency services in Snohomish County, Washington, maintaining 11 fire stations for its nearly 200 firefighters. In August 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued Proclamation 21-14, which required healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 2021. Consistent with federal and state law, health care workers wouldn’t be required to get vaccinated if they were entitled to an accommodation for a sincerely held religious belief unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer. SRFR provided its firefighters with the vaccination requirement information and a process for requesting exemptions. Forty-six of SRFR’s 192 firefighters requested exemptions, and the SRFR met with each employee to discuss their request and any possible accommodation.
In October 2021, the SRFR determined that it couldn’t accommodate unvaccinated firefighters in their firefighting roles without creating an undue hardship on its operations. Because the firefighters’ work requires interfacing with the public, the SRFR didn’t have alternative positions available, nor could it facilitate the employees’ requested accommodation of masking, testing and social distancing. The SRFR encouraged these employees to use accumulated leave days and then apply for a one-year leave of absence, consistent with the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
In November 2022, the employees filed a lawsuit against the SRFR for failure to accommodate their religious beliefs in violation of Title VII and Washington state law. The district court ruled that SRFR couldn’t have accommodated the firefighters without undue hardship, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.
Undue hardship is a difficult legal standard for employers to meet. For religious accommodations, an employer must show that the accommodation would lead to substantial additional costs or expenditures in relation to the conduct of its business. In an undue hardship analysis, courts look at all relevant factors in the case — including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact based on the employer’s nature, size and operating cost. Here, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the SRFR successfully showed that providing the requested accommodation would present significant health and safety costs, operational burdens and financial costs.
The SRFR argued that allowing firefighters to work unvaccinated presented health and safety risks to its own employees and the public, including vulnerable patients that they served. Of the 18,000 emergency calls the SRFR responded to in 2021, the SRFR showed that 85 percent were calls for medical services, and the SRFR transported 6,866 persons to areas hospitals. The SRFR relied on the declaration of Dr. John Lynch, an infectious disease expert, that described, among other things, the risks of COVID-19 spreading throughout fire stations, potential limitations on emergency medical services and firefighting responses in the community, and risks to the public from unvaccinated firefighters. Dr. Lynch also explained in some detail why the employees’ proposed accommodation of testing, masking and social distancing was inadequate.
In terms of operational burdens, almost 25 percent of the SRFR’s firefighters requested a vaccine exemption. The court recognized that accommodating nearly a quarter of the workforce would be a significant cost. On top of that, the SRFR may have additional absences due to COVID-19 spreading through its workforce from unvaccinated firefighters.
Lastly, the SRFR presented evidence of financial costs it would have incurred had it allowed unvaccinated firefighters to perform their jobs. Among other things, the SRFR worried about increased absenteeism due to COVID-19 and the related financial costs to the SRFR and the community. Additionally, the SRFR risked losing a contract to provide emergency medical services to the Department of Corrections, which required proof of vaccination for on-site contractors. The SRFR also argued that it faced potential liability for claims brought against it regarding COVID-19 transmission to patients from unvaccinated firefighters.
Altogether, the SRFR pointed to several substantial costs of accommodating vaccine exemptions and demonstrated the inadequacy of the employees’ proposed accommodation. Importantly, the court noted that the SRFR “thoroughly explained” the medical evidence supporting its decision, why the employees’ proposed accommodation wouldn’t work and the other costs it would face.
This case provides a good example of how deliberate, detailed and thorough employers must be in exploring reasonable accommodations and making undue hardship determinations. Notably, the SRFR engaged in the interactive process with its employees, which provided the opportunity to thoroughly examine the proposed accommodation and the implications and costs of granting them, including considering medical evidence related to health and safety risks, operational burdens and financial costs. Additionally, the SRFR was able to present evidence thoroughly explaining the costs of providing the exemption and why the proposed accommodation was insufficient within the specific context of the organization and the community it served.
It’s important to remember that this case was decided under federal law and that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) has its own separate legal requirements and standards for religious accommodation and undue hardship. The FEHA defines undue hardship as an “action requiring significant difficulty or expense,” when considering several enumerated factors similar to what federal courts consider, such as the type and size of the employer’s operation, facilities and budget, and the proposed accommodation’s costs. While federal and state standards overlap and weigh many of the same factors, employers should keep in mind that they are different laws.
Before making an undue hardship determination, employers should consider whether the proposed accommodation’s costs are substantial in relation to their specific business and whether they can articulate and thoroughly explain how it would impose an undue hardship. Employers should also consult with legal counsel to ensure they adequately consider both federal and state law standards before making a final decision.
James W. Ward, J.D., Employment Law Subject Matter Expert/Legal Writer and Editor, CalChamber
CalChamber members can read more about Undue Hardship in the HR Library. Not a member? Learn how to power your business with a CalChamber membership.
