A federal judge in Washington has denied a Seattle Fire Department lieutenant’s motion for partial summary judgment in a religious discrimination lawsuit arising out of his termination for refusing to comply with the city’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The ruling leaves unresolved whether the lieutenant’s religious beliefs conflicted with the vaccination requirement and whether granting him unpaid leave would have imposed an undue hardship on the city.

Lieutenant Brent Mattila was among a group of Seattle firefighters who sued the city over its handling of religious exemptions to the vaccination mandate. The case, Vale v. City of Seattle, involves the city’s requirement that employees be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 18, 2021.

Lieutenant Mattila submitted a religious exemption request in September 2021, citing his opposition to abortion and concerns about the use of fetal-derived cells in vaccine development. The city approved his religious exemption request in October 2021 but subsequently determined that it could not reasonably accommodate him because his duties involved unavoidable and unpredictable contact with other people.

Lieutenant Mattila used accumulated leave to delay his termination. On October 28, 2022, Washington State rescinded its vaccination mandate, although Seattle’s mandate remained in effect. Following a Loudermill hearing on December 5, 2022, Lieutenant Mattila was terminated effective December 8, 2022. Seattle rescinded its vaccination mandate on February 6, 2023, approximately two months later.

Lieutenant Mattila sought partial summary judgment on his religious discrimination claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). He argued that the city’s initial approval of his religious exemption established the sincerity of his religious beliefs and that the city should have accommodated him by placing him on unpaid leave until the mandate was lifted.

The city disputed whether Lieutenant Mattila had established a genuine conflict between his religious beliefs and the vaccination requirement. It pointed to deposition testimony in which he acknowledged that he had not investigated whether the Sinopharm vaccine, which the city’s expert said did not use fetal-derived cell lines, would have satisfied his religious objections.

The city also cited evidence that Lieutenant Mattila had previously received a flu vaccination and had not investigated whether other medications he had taken were developed using fetal-derived cells. In addition, Lieutenant Mattila testified that he objected to COVID-19 vaccines because they were insufficiently tested.

US Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke concluded that the evidence presented factual questions concerning whether Lieutenant Mattila’s objections were genuinely religious in nature or were based, at least in part, on concerns about vaccine safety and testing.

The judge also rejected Lieutenant Mattila’s argument that the city’s initial approval of his religious exemption conclusively established his claim. The court explained that an employer’s prior determination that an employee held a sincere religious belief does not automatically establish that the belief conflicted with an employment requirement.

The second issue concerned Lieutenant Mattila’s request for unpaid leave. He maintained that the city could have accommodated him for the relatively short period before rescinding its mandate by granting him unpaid leave. The city argued it would be an undue hardship to grant him unpaid leave indefinitely. The city also argued that it did not know the mandate would be lifted in February, 2023 when he was terminated in December, 2022.

The court explained that an undue hardship determination must be based on the circumstances known to the employer when the accommodation decision was made, rather than information learned afterward. Judge Fricke wrote:

• Otherwise, gauging an employer’s actions based on information not available at the time of their decision creates an impossible ‘crystal ball’ standard.

Lieutenant Mattila also pointed to two other Seattle firefighters who were treated differently. Firefighter Jason Allen had a Loudermill hearing postponed until February 7, 2023, after the city rescinded its mandate. Firefighter Steve Ericson had been granted an extended period of medical leave and was subsequently permitted to return to work when the mandate was lifted.

The court found that neither employee’s circumstances established that the city knew when its vaccination mandate would end or that unpaid leave for Lieutenant Mattila would not have imposed an undue hardship.

Judge Fricke emphasized that unpaid leave of indefinite duration does not automatically constitute an undue hardship. However, whether Lieutenant Mattila’s proposed accommodation was reasonable depended on the circumstances confronting the city when it made its decision.

The court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning both the religious conflict and the proposed accommodation. Those questions could not be resolved in Lieutenant Mattila’s favor as a matter of law.