Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCHARGE—9th Cir.: Court upholds termination of unvaccinated healthcare workers under state mandate, (Oct 7, 2025)

By Brittany DiBiaggio, J.D.

The court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by former PeaceHealth employees who were fired for refusing to comply with Washington’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, rejecting claims that the mandate violated federal constitutional and statutory rights.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by over 80 former healthcare workers who challenged Washington state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare employees. The claimants, all terminated from PeaceHealth for noncompliance with the 2021 mandate, argued that the requirement violated their federal constitutional rights and multiple federal statutes and international agreements. The court rejected every claim, finding the mandate lawful, that the claimants lacked enforceable rights under federal law, and Washington’s governor and the healthcare system acted lawfully (Curtis v. Inslee, No. 3:22-cv-05585 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025)).

Background. In August 2021, the governor of Washington issued Proclamation 21-14, requiring all healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 18, 2021, unless exempted. PeaceHealth, a private healthcare provider, adopted its own vaccination policy with a deadline of October 15. The claimants, former PeaceHealth employees, refused vaccination and were subsequently terminated.

The employees sued both the governor and PeaceHealth, claiming the only available vaccine at the time was an “investigational drug” authorized for emergency use and not yet fully FDA-approved, and that they were not properly informed of their right to refuse it. They alleged violations of multiple federal statutes, constitutional rights, and agreements governing the administration of COVID-19 vaccines.

The district court dismissed all claims against the governor, dismissed the federal claims against PeaceHealth, denied leave to amend, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The employees appealed.

Statutory claims. The Ninth Circuit rejected the employees’ argument that federal statutes, regulations, and agreements gave them rights enforceable under Section 1983. To bring such a claim, plaintiffs must show that a statute clearly and specifically confers an individual right. The court concluded that none of the legal authorities cited by the employees met this standard.

The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 (the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statute) did not allow private lawsuits and limited enforcement to the federal government. It found that 10 U.S.C. § 980 (human subject research funding limits) and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) lacked rights-creating language and imposed duties only on federal agencies.

The court further rejected claims under Article VII of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the treaty was not self-executing and Congress had not enacted implementing legislation.

Additionally, the court found that 45 C.F.R. Part 46, the Belmont Report, and the Federal Wide Assurance agreement imposed obligations but did not create individual rights. Likewise, the COVID-19 Vaccine Provider Agreement did not authorize private enforcement, and the employees were not third-party beneficiaries because they refused the vaccine.

Finally, the court held that FDA emergency use authorization letters applied to manufacturers and providers, not to the employees. Because no cited source conferred a specific enforceable right, the statutory claims failed.

Constitutional claims. The Ninth Circuit also rejected each of the employees’ constitutional challenges to Washington’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court found no basis for a claim under the Spending Clause, explaining that statutes enacted under that clause, such as 10 U.S.C. § 980, did not automatically create rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also dismissed the Supremacy Clause claim, reiterating that the clause does not itself create federal rights and that the statutes employees relied on conferred none.

The employees also argued they had a right to refuse an investigational drug without penalty under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court disagreed, holding that Jacobson v. Massachusetts (197 U.S. 11 (1905)) and Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho (148 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc)) barred such claims. Those precedents upheld vaccine mandates that rationally related to protecting public health. The court reasoned that the vaccine policy was rationally related to Washington’s compelling interest in protecting public health during a global pandemic. The court also rejected the employees’ procedural due process claim. Because they were at-will employees, they lacked a protected property interest in their jobs. The state provided advance notice and exemption procedures, satisfying due process requirements.

Finally, the employees’ equal protection claim failed. The mandate applied equally to all healthcare workers and included exemptions for medical and religious reasons. The court held that the policy was rationally related to the legitimate goal of protecting patients and controlling the spread of COVID-19.

Leave to amend. The court upheld the district court’s denial of the employees’ motions to amend their complaint and seek reconsideration. The court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's decision to deny leave to amend. The proposed amendments failed to cure the legal deficiencies already identified, and the district court properly found that further amendment would be futile.

State-law claims. The court also affirmed the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the employees’ remaining state-law claims. It affirmed dismissal of the tort, contract, and privacy claims against the governor. The court found no evidence of an employment relationship, no enforceable contract, and no conduct rising to the level of the tort of outrage.

Because the federal claims failed, the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against PeaceHealth. It explained that those claims may proceed, if at all, in state court.

The case is No. 24-1869.

Judge: McKeown, M.

Attorneys: David J. Schexnaydre (Schexnaydre Law Firm, LLC) for Aila Curtis. Kai Smith (Pacifica Law Group, LLP) for Jay Robert Inslee.

Cases: Discharge Covid19 AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews