Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Or.: Healthcare employees who refused COVID-19 vaccine cannot advance bias claims, (Aug 31, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

There was no genuine dispute of material fact that any accommodation other than unpaid leave would constitute an undue hardship on the employer.

Religious discrimination claims brought by a group of healthcare employees who were placed on unpaid leave after refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine failed to survive summary judgment, ruled a federal district in Oregon. The employer decided that methods besides vaccination were not sufficient to protect its vulnerable patient populations, while the employees argued that the employer failed to engage in a meaningful interactive process and conduct an individualized assessment of their job duties. The court held that the employer was not required to provide an individualized assessment because the undisputed expert evidence established that any accommodation other than leave for employees falling into the roles the employees held would have imposed undue hardship on the employer. (Pickens v. PeaceHealth, Nos. 6:23-cv-01718-MTK and 6:23-cv-01460-MTK (D. Or. Aug. 28, 2026)).

Vaccine mandate. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the employer, a Catholic not-for-profit healthcare system, mitigated exposure risks using screening, testing, masking, other forms of personal protective equipment, and social distancing.

Once COVID vaccines became available in December 2020, the employer encouraged its employees to get vaccinated. On August 3, 2021, the employer announced it would require all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID by September 1, 2021, if able, and to show proof of COVID vaccination or submit a medical or religious exception on or before August 31, 2021.

Epidemiological study. In August 2021, the employer’s Infection Prevention team conducted an internal epidemiological study which found that patients were 11.6 times more likely to get COVID from an unvaccinated caregiver as compared to a vaccinated caregiver.

Vaccine only option. Following that report, the employer considered potential accommodation options for two categories of caregivers: (1) those with patient-facing roles or who provide direct patient care; and (2) those who interact with other caregivers in patient-facing or direct care roles.

Based on the data and information available to it at the time, the employer decided that methods besides vaccination, including masking, testing, social distancing, restrictions on visitation, and hand hygiene protocols, were insufficient to protect its vulnerable patient populations, regardless of whether the caregiver was in a patient-facing role or worked with other caregivers in a patient-facing role. The employer therefore concluded that the only safe and reasonable accommodation for the hundreds of unvaccinated caregivers with approved exceptions who could not work fully remotely was leave.

Unpaid leave. The employer established a committee to review religious exception requests and established a process for evaluating such requests. When the employer approved a request for a religious exception, the employee’s HR partner or supervisor initiated an interview with the employee. Because the employer already determined that contact between unvaccinated caregivers and patients, caregivers, or other community members in its facilities posed an unacceptable health and safety risk, “the question to be determined during the interactive process was whether the caregiver could perform the essential functions of their position 100% remotely.”

Excepted employees who could not work fully remotely were placed on unpaid leave, permitting use of remaining PTO and continuing their health benefits coverage through the later of November 30, 2021, or the end of the month in which they exhausted PTO.

A group of employees filed suit against the employer, alleging religious discrimination based on failure to accommodate and disparate impact theories under federal and state law. Nine employees worked in direct patient care roles with job duties that “required them to have frequent in-person, face-to-face, physical contact with patients in order to provide medical care to them.” Four others had roles “which did not involve direct patient care but required regular close contact with patients and other caregivers in order to perform their job functions.” Each requested a religious exception to the vaccination requirement. The employer approved each of these employees’ exceptions and placed them on unpaid administrative leave. Each employee asserted that the employer engaged in little or no interactive process with them regarding potential accommodations before they were placed on leave.

Failure to accommodate. The employer moved for summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim based on its affirmative defense of undue hardship. The employer argued that, even assuming the employees could establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination based on a failure to accommodate, it was entitled to summary judgment because there was no genuine issue of fact that it reasonably accommodated the employees with leave, and any other accommodation would have caused the employer undue hardship.

According to the EEOC, in evaluating undue hardship in the context of COVID vaccinations, considerations relevant to undue hardship can include, among other things, the proportion of employees in the workplace who already are partially or fully vaccinated against COVID and the extent of employee contact with non-employees, whose vaccination status could be unknown or who may be ineligible for the vaccine. Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employer’s business including, in this instance, the risk of the spread of COVID to other employees or to the public.

Undue hardship factors. Specific to the COVID vaccination issue, the Ninth Circuit has endorsed considering three categories of undue hardship factors: (1) health and safety costs; (2) operational burdens; and (3) financial burdens.

According to the employer, for employees who could not work fully remotely, any accommodation other than leave would have created undue hardship by significantly increasing health and safety risks to its employees and patients.

In response, the employees contended that the employer failed to engage in a meaningful interactive process and conduct an individualized assessment of their job duties. In other words, the employees took issue with the employer’s categorical approach to employees whose job duties could not be completed fully remotely.

The court, however, said it was undisputed that each employee in this case could not perform their job duties fully remotely. Under those undisputed facts, the court held that the employer was not required to provide an individualized assessment because the undisputed expert evidence established that any accommodation other than leave for employees falling into the roles the employees held would have imposed undue hardship on the employer. It would have been futile to individually consider the employees’ accommodation requests, said the court. Accordingly, the court held that the employer was entitled to summary judgment on the employees’ federal and state religious discrimination claims based on a failure to accommodate their religious beliefs.

Disparate impact claim. The employees also advanced a disparate impact theory under federal and state law. The employer argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on this claim because, even if the employees could establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the employer established its business necessity defense a matter of law.

Both parties appeared to agree that, in the context of this case, the arguments and facts supporting the employer’s business necessity defense were functionally identical to those supporting the employer’s undue hardship defense and that the outcome of summary judgment on the undue hardship defense was dispositive of the business necessity defense as well. The court agreed.

For the same reasons the court found no genuine issue of fact that allowing unvaccinated employees in the employees’ roles would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer, the court likewise found no genuine issue of fact that the employer’s COVID vaccination policy was consistent with business necessity and there were no available alternatives to serve the employer’s legitimate needs to protect its patients, other employees, and ability to provide healthcare. Thus, the court found that the employer was also entitled to summary judgment on the employees’ disparate impact claims.

The case is Nos. 6:23-cv-01718-MTK and 6:23-cv-01460-MTK.

Judge: Kasubhai, M.

Attorneys: Caroline Janzen (Rugged Law) for Sarah Pickens, Jamie Rich and Tianna Schaeffer. Kelly S. Riggs (Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt) for PeaceHealth.

Companies: PeaceHealth

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination OregonNews