- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear two COVID-19 vaccine mandate cases over religious exemptions.
- The refusal leaves in place a ruling that lets nearly 1,000 United Airlines workers sue together over unpaid leave.
- That case now returns to a Texas federal court and could take years to resolve.
- Eight Washington firefighters lost their last chance to challenge their department’s denial of religious exemptions.
- Attorneys say the court still has not settled how much hardship allows employers to refuse religious accommodations.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear appeals in two cases over religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates, ending a lawsuit by eight Washington firefighters while leaving in place a ruling that lets a class-action lawsuit against United Airlines proceed. The contrasting outcomes have left attorneys parsing the court’s message on religious liberty protections in the workplace, five years after vaccine mandates swept through public and private sectors.
The justices declined to intervene in both cases, a common practice that does not establish legal precedent. But the practical effects differ sharply: The Washington firefighters’ case effectively ends, while the United Airlines dispute returns to a lower court where it could stretch on for years.
United Airlines employees keep class-action status but face a long road
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear United Airlines’ appeal leaves intact the March decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling allowed employees whom United approved for religious exemptions, but then placed on unpaid leave, to pursue their discrimination claims as a group.
In August 2021, United became the first major American airline to mandate vaccination for its U.S.-based workforce. According to the 5th Circuit ruling, 5,885 employees requested an accommodation and United granted 4,070. More than 2,200 of those were put on unpaid leave as their accommodation.
Some of those employees sued under federal employment discrimination law, arguing unpaid leave was not a reasonable religious accommodation. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas certified the class, and United appealed, contending each worker’s religious objection required individual assessment.
The 5th Circuit rejected that argument, ruling that the class could answer shared questions, including whether unpaid leave was reasonable and whether other options would have created undue hardship for the airline.
Ray Flores, an attorney not connected to the case, warned that the district court must work through different facts for each of the class’s nearly 1,000 members, and predicted years of further litigation unless the case settles.
Washington firefighters lose their fight after nearly four years in court
The eight firefighters from Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue did not receive similar treatment. Known as the “Snohomish Eight,” they declined the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 citing sincerely held religious beliefs and proposed continuing masking, testing, social distancing and other precautions already in use at the department.
The department denied the requests, saying undue hardship would follow: health risks, staffing strains, liability concerns and the possible loss of a $400,000 contract at a state correctional facility. The firefighters were placed on unpaid leave for eight months, and many had to find other jobs.
A federal district judge sided with the department in January 2024, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that ruling in September 2025. The appellate court noted the department provided unrebutted medical evidence showing the proposed precautions were inadequate.
First Liberty Senior Counsel Cliff Martin said in a press release, “Washington can celebrate today that it has taken away the religious liberty rights of our clients.” KUOW reported that Lauren Petersen, wife of lead plaintiff David Petersen, called the loss devastating after so many years of fighting, and said the men’s religious beliefs deserved full legal protection.
Attorneys warn of wider fallout and a split over undue hardship
Stephanie Taub, the lead attorney for the firefighters, told The Defender that rulings against religious accommodation in vaccine cases could spill over to people of faith seeking other workplace accommodations.
Children’s Health Defense General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said the circuits are divided over what showing employers must make to claim undue hardship since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which raised the bar for employers. She called the Snohomish case an important example and said it remains to be seen whether the court will take another case to resolve the split.
Workers who lost paychecks over the mandates are still waiting for the nation’s highest court to say how far an employer can go in sidelining employees of faith, and until it does, they will keep fighting case by case with no clear resolution in sight.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
