9th Cir.

LUXTON V. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

June 25, 2026 ·3:23-cv-05238-DGE ·Unpublished · By Aisha Johnson

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in a Title VII religious accommodation case involving a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court held that accommodating the plaintiff's religious objection to vaccination would impose an undue hardship on the employer due to substantial health and safety risks to patients and staff.

Background

Dr. David Luxton served as the Director of Counseling and Wellness Programs for the Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs. He declined to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based on his religious beliefs. The Department determined it could not accommodate his exemption without undue hardship because his role required in-person contact with healthcare providers and vulnerable veterans. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department on his Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. The court found that the undisputed evidence showed Dr. Luxton’s position required in-person site visits and travel, which could not be performed remotely. Allowing him to work unvaccinated in close contact with healthcare providers and patients posed a realistic and substantial threat of transmission and staff shortages. The Department submitted expert medical evidence that vaccination is more effective than alternative measures like masking or distancing. The court concluded that the health and safety costs constituted an undue hardship under Title VII. The court noted it need not address whether the plaintiff adequately pursued the Department’s offer of reassignment. The court also rejected procedural objections regarding a protective order, a request to amend the complaint, and the dismissal of state law claims.

The dissent

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that healthcare employers can deny religious vaccine exemptions when unvaccinated employees pose a substantial health risk to patients and staff, provided the employer demonstrates the hardship is excessive or unjustifiable under current Supreme Court precedent.