Court upholds Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue’s denial of COVID-19 vaccine accommodations for eight firefighters, citing health, operational, and financial burdens.
The courtroom was silent when the Ninth Circuit judges dropped their hammer on September 2, 2025. Eight Snohomish County firefighters, who had once stood tall in smoke and flame, now found their case scorched. They had asked for religious exemptions from Washington’s 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate, but the appellate court affirmed that their firehouse couldn’t bend without breaking.
This was never just about syringes and scripture. It was about a fire district caught between a governor’s proclamation, a virus raging like a wind-driven blaze, and nearly a quarter of its crew demanding a pass. The court’s opinion, written by Judge Jay Bybee, framed the ordeal in clinical legalese: the department couldn’t accommodate without “undue hardship” (Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, No. 24-1044 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025)).
The backstory runs through Snohomish County’s fire stations, where bunkrooms, kitchens, and rigs became potential vectors. In August 2021, Governor Jay Inslee required healthcare workers, including EMT-certified firefighters, to be vaccinated. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue (SRFR) opened a door for religious objections. Forty-six firefighters walked through. That left management staring at a manpower puzzle it couldn’t solve.
The evidence leaned heavily on Dr. John Lynch, an infectious disease expert from the University of Washington. His testimony painted the accommodations—masking, testing, distancing—as a patchwork too thin for the firehouse reality. Masks slipped during meals, beds couldn’t be six feet apart, and engines packed firefighters shoulder to shoulder. Vaccines, he said, were “the single best tool” at the time.
Operationally, the threat was existential. Nearly a quarter of the force sought exemptions, risking outbreaks that could sideline entire shifts. Financially, SRFR faced the potential loss of a $400,000 contract with the state prison system and exposure to uninsured liability if a patient claimed infection from an unvaccinated responder.
The plaintiffs argued that they never infected anyone, that nearby fire districts handled things differently, and that SRFR itself lifted the mandate months later. But the court refused to weigh hindsight. It ruled on the fall of 2021, when Delta and Omicron battered Washington. In that storm, SRFR’s mandate stood as the only firebreak it could count on.
The appeal is now closed. The firefighters lost their bid to redefine what “reasonable accommodation” meant in a pandemic. The ruling leaves them with no damages, no reinstatement, and no judicial sympathy for the risks they chose not to take.
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit’s decision was not about religion itself but about the limits of accommodation in the workplace. Under Title VII, employees are entitled to accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs unless those accommodations create an undue hardship.
The Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that undue hardship means more than a minor inconvenience. It must be a substantial burden. In this case, the fire department showed that accommodating nearly a quarter of its workforce would compromise operations, expose the public to risk, and potentially cost the agency financially.
The firefighters argued that unpaid leave was not a true accommodation. The court disagreed. When no safe or workable alternative exists, temporary leave can be a lawful option. The law does not require an employer to risk collapse of core services.
The ruling underscores a broader reality: religious freedom in the workplace is balanced against operational feasibility. Here, the court held that public safety and emergency readiness outweighed the requested exemptions.
SEO Tags: Snohomish firefighters vaccine lawsuit, Ninth Circuit COVID ruling, religious exemptions Title VII, Washington vaccine mandate firefighters, SRFR vaccine accommodation case
