Former Redmond firefighters are challenging the loss of their jobs over religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination, alleging city officials rejected previously approved accommodations, withheld alternative assignments and retaliated against employees despite available options that would have allowed them to continue working.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Eight former firefighters in Redmond, Washington, are asking a federal appeals court to revive their religious discrimination lawsuit against the city, arguing that officials deliberately denied reasonable workplace accommodations and concealed available positions before terminating employees who refused COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds.
The case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals centers on whether Redmond violated federal civil rights protections when it revoked previously approved religious exemptions, rejected alternatives to vaccination and allegedly prevented firefighters from obtaining assignments that did not involve direct patient care.
In an opening appellate brief filed Oct. 15, attorneys representing the firefighters contend that the city failed to demonstrate that allowing the employees to continue working would have imposed an undue hardship. They also maintain that evidence of retaliation should have been presented to a jury rather than dismissed by a federal district judge.
The appeal follows a December 2025 decision granting summary judgment to Redmond and dismissing the firefighters’ claims without a trial. The plaintiffs are seeking reversal of that ruling and further proceedings on allegations that their religious accommodation requests prompted discriminatory treatment.
According to an Oct. 19 investigation by Just the News, the firefighters allege that the city had several workable alternatives to termination, including reassignment to administrative positions, exchanging assignments with vaccinated employees and continuing previously authorized masking and testing procedures.
Their attorneys argue that Redmond’s explanations for rejecting those arrangements rested on speculative health and operational concerns rather than documented evidence of substantial costs.
The dispute comes shortly after the Supreme Court declined to hear another Washington firefighters’ vaccine accommodation challenge, leaving in place a separate 9th Circuit ruling involving employees of a Snohomish County regional fire agency.
Both cases involve interpretations of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which strengthened legal protections for employees requesting religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In that case, involving Christian postal worker Gerald Groff’s request not to work Sundays, the Supreme Court clarified that employers must demonstrate substantial increased costs in relation to their business operations before rejecting an accommodation based on undue hardship.
Attorneys challenging COVID-19 vaccination mandates have accused lower courts of applying that precedent inconsistently, arguing that some judges continue accepting hypothetical risks instead of requiring sufficient evidence of actual hardship.
The Redmond firefighters contend that their case differs from the earlier Snohomish litigation because they presented specific evidence of available positions, established protective procedures and prior accommodation agreements.
Their appeal identifies four alternatives that they maintain would have allowed continued employment without imposing an undue burden on the city.
One option involved exchanging assignments with vaccinated firefighters so employees requesting religious accommodations could perform duties without direct contact with medical patients. Another involved transferring personnel to the Fire Prevention unit, which allegedly had two vacancies.
The remaining options included assigning firefighters to other positions identified by city officials as potentially suitable for accommodations and allowing unvaccinated employees to continue working with masks and pre-shift COVID-19 testing.
The plaintiffs argue that these arrangements would have addressed the city’s stated patient safety concerns while preserving their employment.
Their legal filings also emphasize differences in Redmond’s treatment of firefighters and police officers during the pandemic.
According to the firefighters, police officers remained exempt from the city’s additional vaccination requirement despite performing certain emergency medical functions.
The brief states that police personnel also “rode in ambulances and provided life-saving care,” activities that the plaintiffs argue involved potential exposure risks comparable to those cited against unvaccinated firefighters.
Redmond’s policy originated during the implementation of a statewide health care worker vaccination mandate issued by then-Gov. Jay Inslee in August 2021.
That order required covered health care personnel, including firefighters providing emergency medical services, to be vaccinated by Oct. 18, 2021, unless they qualified for religious or medical accommodations.
The plaintiffs maintain that city officials initially approved all eight religious accommodation requests under the state’s exemption provisions.
However, they allege that Redmond reversed its position almost immediately after granting the final approval.
Mayor Angela Birney issued a Sept. 21, 2021, executive order imposing additional vaccination requirements, which the firefighters contend effectively eliminated the accommodations the city had just authorized.
The order cited concerns about protecting patients and maintaining public confidence in emergency medical services.
The “public expectation is that Redmond firefighters will not expose patients to the potential transmission of COVID-19 by being unvaccinated” and will receive vaccination “to protect themselves from the disease,” the order stated.
The plaintiffs argue that officials treated vaccination as the only acceptable means of reducing transmission risk, despite evidence that vaccinated people could also contract and transmit COVID-19.
By the summer of 2021, research involving breakthrough infections during the Delta variant outbreak had demonstrated that vaccination did not entirely prevent infection or transmission.
Earlier statements and internal discussions involving then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky also reflected evolving federal understanding of vaccine effectiveness and breakthrough infections.
COVID-19 vaccines were effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death, particularly during the period when the mandate was adopted. However, protection against infection and transmission was incomplete and changed as new variants emerged.
The firefighters contend that Redmond failed to adequately consider those distinctions when evaluating whether masking, testing and non-patient-facing assignments could satisfy its safety objectives.
They further allege that the department had demonstrated “exceptional” compliance with personal protective equipment requirements and had recorded no known instances of firefighter-to-patient COVID-19 transmission.
The plaintiffs also point to research identifying evidence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in blood donations collected in December 2019, reflecting the Seattle region’s early experience with the virus and the emergency services industry’s subsequent adaptation to pandemic conditions.
Their attorneys argue that city officials should have evaluated actual workplace practices and available risk-reduction measures rather than assuming that accommodating unvaccinated personnel would necessarily endanger patients.
Additional allegations concern statements attributed to Birney and Human Resources Director Cathryn Laird.
According to a separate appellate brief addressing claims against individual city officials, Birney allegedly discussed the need to demonstrate “consequences for the unvaccinated” and supported “making the unvaccinated uncomfortable” and “treat[ing] [them] differently” because of “public perception.”
The plaintiffs also claim that Birney told firefighter Joshua Frei she would accept nothing short of “zero risk of transmission” when considering accommodations.
Laird allegedly later informed plaintiff Matthew Peterson that the city needed to demonstrate a “consequence for being unvaccinated.”
The firefighters argue that those statements support their allegation that the city’s decisions were motivated partly by opposition to religious accommodation requests rather than an individualized assessment of workplace safety.
First Liberty Institute senior counsel Cliff Martin, who represents the plaintiffs alongside Williams & Connolly and the Church State Council, criticized the city’s alleged treatment of employees seeking exemptions.
“The government cannot erase a religious accommodation simply because leaders decide there should be ‘consequences for the unvaccinated,’” Martin said.
One of the central disputes concerns what happened after Redmond identified positions that might allow unvaccinated firefighters to remain employed.
According to the plaintiffs, the firefighters’ union had negotiated alternative assignments that did not require direct contact with medical patients.
However, they allege that the city failed to disclose those opportunities to all affected employees and instead assigned some positions to vaccinated personnel.
Four days after the Oct. 18 vaccination deadline, Redmond identified four positions with “possible accommodations,” the brief states.
One of those positions was already held by plaintiff Brian Robillard, who was allegedly ordered to receive vaccination or leave employment despite working in a non-patient-facing role.
The plaintiffs contend that the city removed Robillard from that assignment and subsequently gave it to a vaccinated employee.
They argue that his circumstances provide particularly strong evidence that Redmond could have accommodated at least one firefighter without creating additional operational burdens.
The city notified six firefighters about potential reassignment opportunities but did not provide equivalent notice to the other two, according to the appeal.
Those six employees were on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act after reporting emotional distress associated with choosing between their religious beliefs and their jobs.
A seventh firefighter used family leave to care for a relative and eventually retired to avoid termination. The eighth remained at work and was dismissed approximately two weeks after the vaccination deadline.
The six firefighters on leave were allegedly told that they would receive a decision about possible accommodations by Dec. 17, 2021.
Their attorneys argue that the city failed to complete a meaningful reassignment process during the following months.
When the firefighters prepared to return in March 2022, they again expressed interest in alternative assignments.
By then, according to the plaintiffs, three of the four positions had expired or been filled, while the city incorrectly represented that the remaining position was unavailable.
None of the six received an accommodation upon returning, and all were subsequently terminated.
Their attorneys contend that the sequence of events demonstrates that Redmond offered only the appearance of an accommodation process without providing a realistic opportunity to retain employment.
The city disputes that characterization.
In a December 2025 ruling granting summary judgment to Redmond, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead concluded that the city’s vaccination requirement was justified by the responsibilities of firefighters who routinely provide emergency medical treatment.
Whitehead found that allowing the plaintiffs to continue patient-facing work without vaccination could create substantial health risks and operational costs, including potential outbreaks affecting emergency response capacity.
The judge also rejected the retaliation claims, concluding that the firefighters lost their jobs because they failed to comply with a generally applicable vaccination requirement rather than because they requested religious accommodations.
The ruling dismissed all claims before trial.
The firefighters now argue that Whitehead improperly resolved disputed factual questions in the city’s favor rather than allowing a jury to consider them.
They contend that Redmond never adequately established that the proposed accommodations would have imposed substantial increased costs under the legal standard articulated in Groff.
The appeal also accuses the district court of failing to meaningfully evaluate the availability of administrative positions and assignment exchanges.
Attorneys emphasize that the city had relaxed other COVID-related restrictions for first responders while continuing to enforce its vaccination requirement into 2022.
Redmond ultimately ended the additional vaccination requirement in February 2023.
The plaintiffs argue that the city’s changing policies and allegedly inconsistent accommodation procedures raise factual questions about whether termination was necessary.
Their brief also challenges Whitehead’s treatment of the Family and Medical Leave Act issues, particularly his acknowledgment that the city “perhaps” violated federal law without finding that the alleged conduct warranted further proceedings.
The firefighters maintain that they established two essential components of their retaliation claims: participation in a protected activity by requesting religious accommodations and adverse employment action through termination.
They argue that a jury should determine whether the city dismissed them because they sought religious protection rather than solely because they remained unvaccinated.
Attorneys also dispute the district court’s conclusion that continued masking and testing would have created unacceptable risks, arguing that such assessments required evidence rather than judicial assumptions about workplace safety.
In the firefighters’ view, Redmond’s policies demonstrated a willingness to approve accommodations in principle but resistance to implementing them when individual employees actually requested exemptions.
The lawsuit now presents the 9th Circuit with questions about the practical application of religious accommodation requirements to public safety employees whose duties include emergency medical care.
Employers remain permitted to impose workplace safety requirements, including vaccination policies, when justified by applicable law and legitimate operational needs.
However, Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
The central dispute is whether Redmond satisfied that obligation by evaluating the available alternatives or instead rejected accommodations without adequately demonstrating their costs.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking reversal of the district court’s judgment and a renewed opportunity to pursue their claims, including a jury trial on disputed allegations of retaliation.
No appellate decision has been issued, and the firefighters’ allegations concerning concealed assignments, discriminatory statements and improper termination remain contested.
The outcome could further clarify how federal courts evaluate religious accommodation requests arising from pandemic-era workplace mandates, particularly when employers offered exemptions initially but later withdrew them.
For the eight former Redmond firefighters, the immediate question is whether they will be allowed to present their evidence to a jury after losing their jobs over a vaccination requirement that the city discontinued in 2023.
Original article
Comments