Sherry Detwiler, a data-privacy executive at Mid-Columbia Medical Center, was subject to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate and a subsequent weekly antigen testing requirement for unvaccinated employees. While the employer granted her an exemption from the vaccine, it required her to undergo weekly nasal swab testing using a cotton swab dipped in ethylene oxide. Detwiler applied for a religious exemption from the testing, stating that she is a practicing Christian who believes her body is a 'temple of the Holy Spirit' and has a duty to avoid defiling it. She explained that she prayed for direction and felt the Holy Spirit moved her conscience to refuse testing that causes harm. She cited scientific findings that ethylene oxide is carcinogenic and could alter DNA as part of her reasoning. When the employer refused her proposed alternatives, such as saliva testing or remote work, they terminated her employment. Detwiler sued for religious discrimination under Title VII, but the district court dismissed the case, concluding she failed to plead a bona fide religious belief. The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed this dismissal.
The panel majority held that Detwiler failed to state a claim because she did not sufficiently plead a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with her employment duty. The court reasoned that while beliefs can derive from a combination of spiritual and secular considerations, a plaintiff must connect the requested exemption with a truly religious principle. The court found that Detwiler's objection to the nasal testing was based entirely on her understanding of secular information regarding the carcinogenic nature of ethylene oxide, rather than a specific religious tenet. The majority stated that 'invocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction.' Furthermore, the court held that 'prayer, without more, is insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.' The court concluded that Detwiler's belief was not that her body is a temple, but that the testing swab is dangerous, a point based on secular research. Consequently, the court determined she had not pleaded enough facts to show her belief was religious rather than purely secular.
The decision affirms the dismissal of Detwiler's lawsuit, meaning no further relief is available under federal employment discrimination law for her specific claims. The ruling sets a precedent in the Ninth Circuit requiring plaintiffs to plead a clear nexus between their religious convictions and their refusal to comply with employment policies, explicitly excluding objections based on secular knowledge or general prayer. This limits the ability of employees to claim religious exemptions for medical or safety-related objections unless they can demonstrate a specific religious tenet driving the objection, rather than a combination of faith and secular research. The case remains open to the unresolved doctrinal question of how to distinguish between religious and secular motivations in future Title VII cases.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download