A US federal appeals court has ruled against the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife after it failed to properly accommodate employees’ religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination.
The case, *Cherry et al. v. Washington Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, et al.*, was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and serves as an important guide for employers on religious accommodation obligations.
In August 2021, the Governor of Washington mandated that nearly all state employees vaccinate against COVID-19 or face termination from their roles.
Five employees at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department sought exemptions from the mandate on religious grounds, prompting the department to review their requests.
The department accepted that the employees’ objections were rooted in sincerely held religious beliefs, but maintained that vaccination remained a requirement for roles involving work in the physical presence of others.
All five employees offered to wear masks and maintain social distancing, with some also proposing telework arrangements as practical alternatives to vaccination.
Each of the five employees expressed a willingness to transfer to a different position that would resolve the religious conflict, prompting the department to indicate that “reassignment remains a possibility, although opportunity may be limited.”
Employees were directed to speak with a Reasonable Accommodation Specialist, but when one approached that specialist, the response they received was that “[t]here’s just nothing available.”
None of the employees completed the reassignment process, and the department subsequently terminated all five of them from their positions.
The district court initially sided with the employer, ruling that the department had met its obligations under Title VII simply by offering access to the reassignment process.
The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, finding that the department had confused the interactive process obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act with the distinct religious accommodation standard required by Title VII.
The appeals court made clear that an employer’s duty in a religious accommodation context requires proposing specific accommodations, which in this case would have meant offering concrete options for transfer rather than vague possibilities.
The court found that merely pointing employees toward a process was insufficient to satisfy the department’s legal obligations, and remanded the case for trial.
Employers should not interpret the ruling as a blanket prohibition on vaccine mandates, nor as a requirement that reassignment must always be offered whenever an employee requests religious accommodation.
The decision nonetheless carries a clear warning for organisations that conflate procedural steps with substantive accommodation, and underscores the need for employers to engage meaningfully with religious exemption requests.