⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit reviews the firing of four Washington financial-regulation employees who sought religious accommodations from a COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The agency processed their requests without scrutinizing their beliefs, but found it could not accommodate them; they remained unvaccinated and lost their jobs. They sued under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law, and Washington law. The district court held their objections did not establish the required religious conflict and dismissed their claims without a trial. Their lawyer will challenge that conclusion; the agency will defend it. For Carolyn Sabin, it will also argue that remote work would impose an undue hardship. That requires substantial increased costs in the context of the employer's operations, not just an inconvenience. You'll also hear Detwiler: a precedent about religious objections to COVID testing, not vaccination, distinguishing religious practice from personal medical judgments. The appeal asks whether the evidence supports deciding the case as a matter of law or requires a jury.

Fisher, et al. v. Washington Department of Financial Institutions, et al. (No. 25-3798) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 27, 2026.