Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—W.D. Wash.: Accommodating deputies’ objections to COVID-19 vaccines would have caused undue hardship, (Nov 18, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

While substantial evidence suggested the deputies’ objections were primarily secular—including their continued use of other medications tested on fetal cell lines—the court did not need to resolve the sincerity question.

Although triable issues existed as to whether two married deputy sheriffs, who were fired after refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, held sincere religious objection to the use of fetal cells in the development of the vaccine, the county was entitled to summary judgment on their federal and state law religious discrimination claims since accommodating 80+ unvaccinated deputies would have imposed an undue hardship on the sheriff’s department through increased health risks and disruption to its law enforcement mission. A federal district court in Washington also tossed the deputies’ Section 1983 claims alleging free exercise and due process violations, and dismissed as moot the county’s motion for spoilation sanctions based on the male deputy’s failure to preserve over 2-1/2 years of potentially relevant messages on two personal cell phones (Eshom v. King County, No. 2:24-cv-00007-JNW (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2025)).

The deputy sheriffs were fired in 2022 after they refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in violation of the Washington county’s vaccine mandate. The female deputy worked as a detective in the sexual assault unit (SAU), and in that role she traveled to hospitals, homes, and other indoor settings to collect evidence, interview victims, witnesses, suspects, and otherwise execute search and arrest warrants. The male deputy worked mostly with the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) as a Federal Task Force Officer (TFO).

Claim religious objection. They both sought exemptions from the vaccine mandate, claiming that the development of vaccines using fetal cells conflicted with their Christian religious beliefs opposing abortion. They also objected on the grounds that the vaccine violated their spiritual mandate to remain physically pure. They were among over 80 deputies who sought religious exemptions that would allow them to work unvaccinated with alternative safety measures.

The county denied all such requests, determining that deputies’ essential law enforcement duties required close contact with the public and colleagues, making vaccination critical to fulfilling the law enforcement mission of the sheriff’s department during the pandemic. The married couple continued to refuse the vaccine and, after unsuccessful written appeals and hearings, were each ultimately terminated. They sued, alleging both federal and state law claims.

Religious vs. secular beliefs. First addressing their failure to accommodate claims under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), the court found that a triable issue existed as to the sincerity of their bona fide religious beliefs. In support of their claim, they both articulated facially religious objections against abortion grounded in Biblical teachings, and the use of fetal cells in the development or testing of the COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, courts have recognized similar fetal-cell objections as potentially constituting sincere religious beliefs.

However, the county presented evidence suggesting that these purported religious convictions masked their primarily secular concerns. For example, their alleged conviction against the use of fetal cells was undermined by their having admittedly taken medications that had been tested using fetal cells, including Ivermectin. Moreover, the female deputy failed to cite the basis for her deeply held convictions regarding the vaccine outside of personal prayer.

These admissions suggested that their religious concerns were the type of scientific and political objections to the vaccine that they have attempted to “fit” to their religious beliefs in order to qualify for a religious exemption, concluded the court. Thus, whether their professed religious concerns were sincere or merely post-hoc rationalizations for secular concerns would be a question for a jury.

Undue hardship. Nevertheless, their Title VII and WLAD claims failed since the county demonstrated that the potential accommodations available—allowing them to continue working while unvaccinated through other mitigation measures—would have caused an undue hardship. First, their jobs undisputedly required close contact with coworkers and the general public, which increased the possibility of spreading COVID-19. Indeed, the female deputy acknowledged that discussing sexual assault and other traumatic events as an SAU detective required empathy and sensitivity, which were emotions that were “best conveyed in person.” Similarly, the male deputy acknowledged that he was most effective while operating in person. They also both responded in person to the George Floyd demonstrations.

They also failed to refute evidence presented by the county’s medical examiner showing that—given the close contact between county deputies and the general public, the population served, and the undisputed effectiveness of vaccination policies—accommodating the deputies would significantly increase the risk of COVID-19 infections to both themselves, other deputies, and the general public. In addition, allowing remote work would require the sheriff’s office to incur the significant operational cost of potentially losing 80 in-person deputies. Indeed, federal courts have repeatedly upheld similar denials, including the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, affirming a summary judgment ruling finding that a fire department could not accommodate 46 unvaccinated firefighters without undue hardship.

Free Exercise claims fail. The deputies’ Free Exercise claims under the First Amendment also failed since neither one suffered a constitutional deprivation under the “neutral and generally applicable” vaccine mandate, which was rationally related to the county’s legitimate interest in protecting the health and welfare of its personnel and those they serve by safeguarding against COVID-19. While the deputies alleged that the exemption process was a “sham” because the county never intended to grant religious accommodations, it was undisputed that hundreds of county employees did receive temporary accommodations under the exemption process.

No due process violation. The deputies’ Due Process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment also failed as a matter of law since they both received ample notice and an opportunity to be heard. They undisputedly received notice of the vaccine mandate, promptly requested exemptions via the accommodation process, chose to complete that process via written responses rather than a virtual meeting, and were eventually denied exemption and accommodations. The county then notified them of their potential termination due to non-compliance with the vaccine mandate and provided them with at least one Loudermill hearing before terminating them.

Spoilation sanctions. Finally, the court declined to rule on the county’s motion for sanctions against the male deputy for failing to preserve electronically stored information on at least two personal cell phones. Specifically, the county sought an adverse inference instruction about the sincerity of his religious beliefs as well as attorney’s fees and costs incurred due to the failure to preserve. The court noted that although the deputy was aware of his duty to preserve electronic evidence by at least January 2023, he undisputedly failed to preserve text and Signal messages spanning March 2022 through December 2024—over two and a half years of potentially relevant communications. However, while his preservation failures were “deeply troubling,” the county’s motion was moot since summary judgment disposed of all his claims on the merits.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-00007-JNW.

Judge: Whitehead, J.

Attorneys: Brian Fahling (Law Office of Brian Fahling) for Joseph and Jenifer Eshom. Zachary J. Pekelis (Pacifica Law Group) for King County.

Companies: King County

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Covid19 EvidenceDiscovery Discharge WashingtonNews