⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Three employees at an Oregon dental office received religious exceptions to a COVID-19 vaccination rule. In January 2022, Dr. Alanson Randol withdrew those exceptions, required vaccination, and fired the three when they declined. They sued under Title Seven; one woman's claim was dismissed early, and a later ruling ended the other two. Title Seven generally requires an employer to accommodate sincere religious practice unless doing so would cause undue hardship: a substantial burden on its business. Here the appeal asks whether two women's objections showed a protected religious conflict, and whether allowing Lacey Bird to work remotely would have imposed that burden on the clinic. Ray Hacke of Pacific Justice Institute represents the former employees and will challenge those rulings, especially the decision that Bird's proposed remote work was too burdensome without a jury hearing her case.

Bird v. Alanson M. Randol, D.D.S., P.C. (No. 25-1714) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026.