Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—W.D. Wash.: Public employees discharged for vaccine refusal fail to state constitutional claims, (Apr 10, 2025)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

The employees alleged no facts indicating how management discussions about implementation of a state COVID-19 vaccine mandate burdened their free exercise rights.

In a Section 1983 action against a state agency and its officials, former state employees terminated for vaccine refusal failed to plausibly allege violations of their federal free exercise, equal protection, and due process rights, a federal district court in Washington has ruled. Among other deficiencies, the complaint set forth no facts indicating that the officials had personally participated in causing the alleged deprivations (Seagraves v. Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families, No. 3:24-cv-05081-TMC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2025)).

Seventeen discharged employees of a Washington state agency, who had unsuccessfully sought religious exemptions from the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, brought suit under Section 1983 and state law against their former employer and three of its officials, asserting violations of their rights under the federal and state constitutions. In August 2021, the governor had issued a proclamation requiring most state employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 18, 2021. The proclamation expressly allowed employees who objected to vaccination “based on a sincerely held religious belief under applicable law” to seek exemption from the mandate, but it also stated that “State Agencies are not required to provide such accommodations if they would cause undue hardship.

The amended complaint alleged that the agency secretary, assistant secretary, and HR director had “personally and integrally participated in concocting [the agency’s] exemption and accommodations policies that were intentionally designed to treat religiously exempt [agency] employees less favorably than their similarly situat[ed] secularly exempt counterparts.” The complaint referenced a text message and an email the secretary had sent shortly after the governor’s proclamation was issued. The text message—a reply to an individual’s inquiry about how to proceed—stated simply, “Not figured out yet. We will be as strict as we are allowed to be.”

The email, sent to agency administrators, discussed different ways to encourage employee vaccination. First on the list of possible approaches was to communicate the message, “Get vaccinated or lose your job.” Second on the list was “Make it easy to get vaccinated.” Suggested resources included a “North Dakota video from religious authorities (pope, etc.),” while anticipated areas of difficulty included “Religious objections, real or imagined.” The email mentioned “get[ting] a strong message out about the inability to hide behind the exemption strategy[.]” The complaint alleged that such language targeted Christians, especially Catholics.

Before the court was the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 causation. The court noted that in order to satisfy the causation requirement of a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant caused the alleged deprivation by “doing an affirmative act, participating in another’s affirmative act, or failing to perform an act” that they were legally required to do.

Free exercise, equal protection claims. On the religion claim, the court determined that the complaint failed to adequately identify how the individual defendants had personally participated in violating the employees’ religious free exercise rights. The only concrete factual allegations were based on the secretary’s text message and email communication. In the court’s view, the text message stating that that the agency would be “strict as we are allowed to be” was merely a restatement of the proclamation’s requirement that all state employees be vaccinated unless they were entitled to an exemption under existing law. Further, the complaint failed to indicate how the secretary’s discussion of different strategies to encourage voluntary compliance with the proclamation evinced hostility toward religious beliefs or practices. Nor did it allege that the assistant secretary or the HR director had done anything other than receive the secretary’s email.

Even if the complaint adequately alleged personal participation, the free exercise claim would fail on the merits. Among other shortcomings, the complaint did not plausibly allege that the vaccination mandate was not neutral and generally applicable. The agency’s granting medical exemptions, even at an allegedly higher rate than religious exemptions, did not undermine the agency’s interests, nor did it raise a serious question as to whether the mandate was generally applicable. For these reasons, the court would dismiss both the free exercise and the equal protection claims against all three agency officials in their individual capacities.

Due process claims. The employees also asserted procedural and substantive due process claims. However, the complaint failed to set forth facts suggesting that any of the three officials had participated in even one of the 17 employees’ accommodation decisions. Further, the employees’ substantive claim, based on the right to bodily autonomy, was raised for the first time in their opposition brief. Thus, the due process claims would be dismissed.

Official capacity claims. The court then dismissed the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities, as the employees had not pleaded any plausible constitutional violation.

State law claims. With no surviving federal claims, the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the employee’s state law claims.

For these reasons, the court dismissed with prejudice (1) all federal claims against the agency and damages claims against the individuals in their personal capacities, and (2) all federal claims for injunctive relief against the individuals in their official capacities. The court dismissed without prejudice all state claims.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-05081-TMC.

Judge: Cartwright, T.

Attorneys: Nathan J. Arnold (Arnold Jacobowitz & Alvarado) for Stephanie Seagraves. Erica Coray (Pacifica Law Group) for Washington Department of Children Youth and Families.

Companies: Washington Department of Children Youth and Families

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Covid19 IndividualRights StateLawClaims WashingtonNews