Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center

── Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHERRY H. DETWILER, No. 23-3710 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-01306-JR v. District of Oregon, MID-COLUMBIA MEDICAL Portland CENTER; CHERI MCCALL, an individual; DOES, 1 through 50, ORDER Defendants - Appellees. Filed April 15, 2026 Before: John B. Owens and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges, and Richard Seeborg, Chief District Judge. * Order; Dissent by Judge Forrest; Dissent by Judge Tung * The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States Chief District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 DETWILER V. MID-COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER SUMMARY * Employment Discrimination / Religious Accommodation The panel denied a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel majority affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a Title VII action alleging discrimination on the basis of religion by plaintiff’s employer in connection with a COVID-19 vaccine requirement. In its opinion, the panel majority held that the plaintiff failed sufficiently to plead a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with her employer’s policy requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, absent an approved exception, and she therefore failed to state a failure-to-accommodate claim. Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Forrest, joined by Judges R. Nelson, Bress, Bumatay, VanDyke, and Tung, wrote that, in an effort to prevent religion from being used as an insincere excuse for avoiding general public-health measures implemented to address the COVID-19 pandemic, the court held that plaintiffs claiming religious discrimination must show a clear nexus between their religious convictions and their choice not to comply with those measures that does not involve “secular” knowledge. The court also held that in establishing such nexus, plaintiffs may not rely on the invocation of prayer, without more. But this standard necessarily requires judging * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  DETWILER V. MID-COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER 3 religious belief, and it is a significant misstep that risks reducing the freedom of belief to the freedom of accepted belief. Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Tung, joined by Judges R. Nelson, Collins, Lee, Bress, Bumatay, and VanDyke, wrote that the panel majority legally erred by recharacterizing the plaintiff’s clearly religious objection to a company policy as “purely secular” merely because the objection turned in part on a secular consideration. ORDER Judges Owens and Seeborg have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Owens has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Seeborg so recommends. Judge VanDyke has voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 40. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. Judge Forrest’s and Judge Tung’s d