Not only does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protect employees from discrimination based upon their religious beliefs, but it also obligates employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees when their job duties conflict with a sincerely held religious belief. Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that employees may not bring religious discrimination claims based solely upon broad, generic religious principles and ruled in favor of an employer declining to provide a requested religious accommodation (Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, No. 23-3710 (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025)).
Sherry Detwiler worked for Mid-Columbia Medical Center (MCMC), an Oregon hospital, from September 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. At this time, the Oregon Health Authority required health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or have in place an approved exemption.
Describing herself as a practicing Christian, Detwiler believes her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and sincerely believes she has a “religious duty to avoid defiling her ‘temple’ by taking in substances that the Bible explicitly condemns or which could potentially cause physical harm to her body”.
On September 28, 2021, using online research, she requested a religious accommodation from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement because the vaccine included “potentially harmful substances,” and the introduction of these substances conflicted with her religious beliefs.
MCMC granted her an accommodation from the vaccine requirement with some caveats. While in the office, Detwiler would be required to wear personal protective equipment and submit to weekly COVID-19 antigen testing. The antigen test required dipping a swab in ethylene oxide and then swirling it inside of a person’s nose.
Relying again on online research, Detwiler requested a religious accommodation from the antigen testing requirement because ethylene oxide is a carcinogen and putting this substance in her body would violate her religious beliefs as her body is a “temple of God”. Detwiler proposed either a fully remote work position or that she be allowed to use saliva testing for COVID-19 instead of the antigen testing.
On October 19, 2021, MCMC rejected both requests as impractical and creating an undue hardship on the hospital. Instead, MCMC placed Detwiler on an unpaid leave of absence until October 30, 2021, or until she complied with the testing requirements. Then, MCMC extended this deadline to December 20, 2021, asking her to comply with the testing requirements or accept a reassignment. Detwiler failed to exercise either option, so MCMC terminated her employment.
On November 4, 2022, Detwiler filed a lawsuit claiming the failure to provide her with her requested accommodations — and the subsequent termination of her employment — was unlawful religious discrimination. MCMC moved to dismiss the claim because, it argued, Detwiler’s opposition to testing wasn’t based upon religious beliefs, but rather her judgment based upon scientific research. The trial court agreed with MCMC and dismissed the case.
The trial court noted that while Detwiler did articulate a bona fide religious belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, her rationale for objecting to the testing was not based on this belief or any other religious tenet or teaching but rather based on scientific evidence. Detwiler appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
While evaluating the merits of Detwiler’s claim, the Ninth Circuit noted that it has not yet adopted a test for determining whether a belief underlying a religious discrimination claim is secular or religious in nature. The court also noted that beliefs may have both secular and religious bases. But, to bring a claim for religious discrimination, a plaintiff must show some nexus between her religion and the specific belief in conflict with the work requirement.
According to the Ninth Circuit, broad invocations of religious beliefs can’t convert a secular belief into a religious one. In this case, Detwiler’s broad religious belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit or God can’t overcome that her objection to the antigen testing is based on secular concerns about carcinogenic nature of ethylene oxide. Because the court has determined that Detwiler’s true conflict with the work requirements is secular in nature — and not religious — her religious beliefs and the work requirement at issue do not sufficiently overlap.
To highlight this principle in another fashion, the court uses, as an example, an employee who also holds the religious belief that their body is a temple. The employee then interprets that belief to require daily exercise. When researching the best ways to exercise, morning exercise is suggested as being the best. Although the employee is now exercising in the morning in service to their religious beliefs, choosing to exercise in the morning as opposed to another time of day is not religious in nature. Therefore, if the employee sought a religious accommodation to excuse them from morning job duties so they could exercise, it is in service to a secular belief — rather than a religious one — and they would not be entitled to a religious accommodation on this basis.
The Ninth Circuit does acknowledge that adjudicating between religious and secular beliefs in this fashion conflicts with other circuits, and as a result, the U.S. Supreme Court could take up the issue to resolve the split.
Further, this case only addresses the federal standard that applies to California employers with 15 or more employees; it doesn’t address California-specific religious discrimination claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Whether this decision is upheld or overturned in later litigation, employers should still always exercise caution when engaging in the interactive process over religious accommodation requests and engage with legal counsel if issues arise. However, this case should remind employers to ensure that it is a religious belief creating conflict with a work requirement — and not some other secular preference.
Matthew J. Roberts, Associate General Counsel, Labor and Employment
CalChamber members can read more about Religious Discrimination in the HR Library. Not a member? Learn how to power your business with a CalChamber membership.
