Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—W.D. Wash.: Washington State employees immune from COVID-19 related termination claims, (Jul 24, 2025)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

The actions of state employees taken in light of the state’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement were protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Former employees of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) were unable to state constitutional rights violation claims against the DSHS and two individual employees related to employment decisions made after the employees requested COVID-19 vaccine exemptions, according to the federal district court in Tacoma, Washington. The constitutional claims asserted by the former employees against the Senior Director of the Human Resources Division and the Regional Administrator of the Aging and Long-Term Care Administration failed to produce any evidence that the individual defendants personally participated in any constitutional deprivations. Further, the individual defendants were protected by qualified immunity (Ray v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, No. 2:23-cv-00465-TMC (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2025)).

The Washington State Governor issued a Proclamation requiring all state agency workers be fully vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus by October 18, 2021. The Proclamation allowed for certain exemptions that required employers, including DSHS, to evaluate medical and religious exemption requests and provide reasonable accommodations consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination statutes. State Agencies were not required to provide accommodations if they would cause undue hardship.

At issue are 37 former DSHS employees who sought a religious and/or medical exemption and accommodations from Washington’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. DSHS granted exemptions to nearly every employee that applied for one, but did not grant requests to continue in their existing positions. One employee accepted a reassignment, then ultimately resigned. Three were allegedly “forced to prematurely retire”, and the rest claimed wrongful termination.

The former employees filed suit, alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause, Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Contracts Clause, and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Although the complaint did not specify that the federal constitutional claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a suit claiming a violation of a constitutional right must utilize § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and that the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. To satisfy the causation requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant caused the alleged deprivation by doing an affirmative act, participating in another’s affirmative act, or failing to perform an act which he or she was legally required to do.

The court dismissed the federal claims against DSHS, the claims against DSHS administrators in their official capacities, and the Takings Clause claim with prejudice. The former employees conceded that the federal constitutional claims against DSHS (a state agency that is not a “person” under Section 1983) and against the Senior Director of the Human Resources Division and the Regional Administrator of the Aging and Long-Term Care Administration of DSHS in their official capacities should be dismissed. Also, they sought dismissal of their Takings Clause claim to “narrow the issues going forward.”

The court also dismissed the Free Exercise, Due Process, and Contracts Clause claims against the DHSH administrators in their personal capacities because there was insufficient evidence the administrators personally participated in violating their rights. To find a defendant individually liable under Section 1983, “the defendant must have played an integral role in and been personally responsible for the deprivation.” There were no individualized allegations made against either the Senior Direct or HR or the Regional Administrator. Because the complaint grouped the actions of all the defendants together, the court was unable to draw the necessary connection between the actions or omissions. Also, the complaint made only generalized allegations that prevented the court from conducting an inquiry into causation focused on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant. Finally, the court noted that the few allegations that did concern the individual defendants concerned their normal duties as employees of DHSH.

The individual defendants were also protected by qualified immunity, according to the court. Similar claims against the Senior Director of HR have already been dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. Also, district courts have routinely held that officials are entitled to qualified immunity in similar challenges to public health orders because they were facing an unprecedented global pandemic, for which there was little if any clearly established precedent. Further, the court noted that at the time the Senior Director of HR implemented DSHS’s vaccine mandate, there was no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent which put her on notice that either the mandate or DSHS’s method of implementing it was unconstitutional.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-00465-TMC.

Judge: Cartwright, T.

Attorneys: Lesley-Anne Alvarado (Arnold Jacobowitz & Alvarado PLLC) for Aimee Ray, Aleksey Kopytin, Billie Jo Jacobs, Cari Kuuttila, Carly Crosby, Cherie Smith, Christopher Mitchell and Darcie Barnes. Mary Eileen Crego Peterson (Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson) for Wendy Long and Sonya Sanders, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and Washington State Department of Health and Human Services.

Companies: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services; Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

Cases: Procedure Discharge Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Covid19 WashingtonNews