The component is not available at this moment. Please contact the site administrator.
by Matthew J. Roberts, J.D.; Associate General Counsel for Labor and Employment, CalChamber
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act not only protects employees from discrimination based upon their religious beliefs, but it also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees when job duties conflict with a sincerely held religious belief.
In a case that explores how religious and secular beliefs can conflict, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that employees may not bring religious discrimination claims based only on broad, generic religious principles underpinned by secular reasoning. The court ruled in favor of the employer who declined to provide the requested religious accommodation because the basis for the request was secular and not religious, despite the employee’s assertions (Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, No. 23-3710 (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025)).
From September 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021, Sherry Detwiler worked for Mid-Columbia Medical Center (MCMC), an Oregon hospital, as a Privacy Officer. At that time during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oregon Health Authority required health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or have in place an approved exemption.
Describing herself as a practicing Christian, Detwiler believes her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and sincerely believes she has a “religious duty to avoid defiling her ‘temple’ by taking in substances that the Bible explicitly condemns or which could potentially cause physical harm to her body.” While conducting online research into the COVID-19 vaccine, Detwiler determined that the vaccine was created from fetal cell lines and contained “neurotoxins, attenuated viruses, carcinogens, chemical wastes and other potentially harmful substances.”
Based upon this research, on September 28, 2021, Detwiler requested a religious accommodation from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement because the vaccine conflicted with her religious beliefs against abortion and introducing harmful substances into her body.
A few days later, MCMC granted her an accommodation from the vaccine requirement with some caveats. While performing her duties in the office, Detwiler would be required to wear personal protective equipment and submit to weekly COVID-19 antigen testing. The antigen test required dipping a swab in ethylene oxide and then swirling it inside of a person’s nose.
After researching the antigen testing, Detwiler found “multiple sources” describing ethylene oxide as a carcinogen. As a result, she requested a religious accommodation to avoid the weekly antigen testing, citing her religious beliefs that her body is a “temple of God.”
In her request, Detwiler elaborated on these beliefs, stating in part, “[i]n order to keep myself from sin, and receive God’s direction in my life, I pray and ask God for wisdom and direction daily. As part of my prayers, I have asked God for direction regarding the current COVID testing requirement. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not participate in COVID testing that causes harm.” Then, she cites her research that the ethylene oxide in the antigen testing is a carcinogen and that participating in that testing would cause her body harm in violation of her religious beliefs.
As part of her accommodation request, Detwiler proposed either a fully remote work position or that she be allowed to use saliva testing for COVID-19 instead of the antigen testing.
On October 19, 2021, during the interactive process, MCMC rejected both requests as impractical and would create an undue hardship for the hospital. First, the hospital noted that saliva testing results take 24 to 36 hours, making it impractical to call Detwiler in for same-day, in-person work. Next, the hospital noted that when Detwiler did work remotely in the earlier stages of the pandemic, her work received more complaints and dissatisfaction.
Instead, MCMC placed Detwiler on an unpaid leave of absence until October 30, 2021, or until she complied with the testing requirements. On its own, MCMC extended this deadline to December 20, 2021, asking her to comply with the testing requirements or instead accept a reassignment. Detwiler failed to exercise either option, causing MCMC to terminate her employment.
Following her termination, Detwiler filed a lawsuit against MCMC. On November 4, 2022, she amended her lawsuit claiming the failure to provide her with her requested accommodations — and the subsequent termination of her employment — was unlawful religious discrimination.
MCMC moved to dismiss the claim because, it argued, Detwiler’s opposition to testing wasn’t based upon religious beliefs but rather on secular, medical judgment. The trial court agreed with MCMC, finding that Detwiler’s refusal to participate in the antigen testing was based on a “secular, non-religious belief that the nasal swab testing contains hazardous materials” and dismissed the case. But Detwiler was allowed to refile her claim to provide a valid basis for her religious discrimination claim.
Detwiler filed a new claim asserting that in addition to the secular judgment against antigen testing, she also exercised her religious judgment, and that her belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit is rooted in the Bible, which supports her religious beliefs. She also added that personal prayer contributed to her opposition to the antigen testing.
MCMC again sought dismissal of Detwiler’s claims. The trial court noted that while Detwiler did articulate a bona fide religious belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, her rationale for objecting to the testing was not based on this belief or any other religious tenet or teaching — but rather based on scientific evidence. This time, the trial court dismissed the claim and didn’t allow Detwiler to refile. Detwiler appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit.
While evaluating the merits of Detwiler’s claim, the Ninth Circuit noted that it has not yet adopted a test for determining whether a belief underlying a religious discrimination claim is secular or religious in nature. The court also noted that beliefs may have both secular and religious bases. But, to bring a claim for religious discrimination, a plaintiff must show some connection between their religion and the specific belief in conflict with the work requirement. A similar requirement exists when alleged religious discrimination stems from a failure to provide a religious accommodation.
While an employee is not required to show the sincerity or reasonableness of their religious beliefs, broad invocations of these religious beliefs can’t convert an underlying secular reasoning into a religious one. In this case, Detwiler’s broad religious belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit or God can’t overcome that her objection to the antigen testing is based on secular concerns about the carcinogenic nature of ethylene oxide. Because the court determined that Detwiler’s true conflict with the work requirements was secular in nature — and not religious — her religious beliefs and the work requirement at issue do not sufficiently overlap.
To highlight this principle in another fashion, the court uses, as an example, an employee who also holds the religious belief that their body is a temple. The employee then interprets that belief to require daily exercise. When researching the best ways to exercise, morning exercise is suggested as the best. Although the employee is now exercising in the morning in service to their religious beliefs, choosing to exercise in the morning as opposed to another time of day is not religious in nature. Therefore, if the employee sought a religious accommodation to excuse them from morning job duties so they could exercise, it is in service to a secular belief — rather than a religious one — and they would not be entitled to a religious accommodation on this basis.
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion was not unanimous, and a dissent filed in this case highlights the unprecedented nature of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. According to the dissent, the trial court artificially segregated Detwiler’s religious and secular beliefs by finding that Detwiler’s reason for rejecting the antigen testing — the presence of a carcinogen — wasn’t specifically premised on a biblical or other religious tenet or teaching. The dissent highlighted that the reason that secular belief was important was because Detwiler’s religious beliefs prevented her from putting hazardous materials into her body as dictated by her interpretation of biblical scripture and her own religious prayer practices.
Because of the trial court’s artificial parsing of religious versus secular beliefs, which was supported by the majority opinion, the dissent found the courts have gone too far into judging the legitimacy of Detwiler’s religious beliefs and thus have started to tread into the territory of judging the sincerity or reasonableness of the employee’s beliefs, which the majority acknowledged wasn’t appropriate.
Both the majority and the dissenting opinions recognize that the Ninth Circuit adjudicating between religious and secular beliefs in this fashion conflicts with other circuits. Such a circuit split can result in the U.S. Supreme Court taking up the issue to resolve it, leaving employees and employers in limbo over this ruling.
California employers should note that this case only addresses the federal standard that applies to California employers with 15 or more employees, but doesn’t address California-specific religious discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Responding to employees with concerns involving their sincerely held religious beliefs in the workplace can be a sensitive matter. It’s important that employers immediately engage with employees in a good faith, interactive process to discuss how their religious beliefs impact their work environment to determine any necessary and appropriate accommodation.
When conducting this interactive process, the employer should avoid questioning the religious belief itself, as the Ninth Circuit notes that these beliefs don’t have to be well-known or mainstream to qualify for protection. Instead, in the interactive process, the employer should explore how their religious belief impacts a necessary function of their job. Examples include scheduling impacts or dress code modifications.
Lastly, if the employer determines that a sincerely held religious belief does conflict with an essential function of the employee’s job, the employer must explore a reasonable accommodation for that conflict that doesn’t create an undue hardship for the employer. The employer is not bound by whatever the employee suggests, as long as the accommodation the employer provides is reasonable and addresses the conflict between the employee’s religious beliefs and their work.
Because the undue hardship exception is a tough standard for employers to meet, employers should engage with legal counsel prior to declining to provide an accommodation due to undue hardship.