Williams v. Legacy Health

── Williams v. Legacy Health ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAROLD C. WILLIAMS, Jr.; No. 24-5977 TOBY HIGA; DANIELA D.C. No. MARIANU; ANGELA LOGHRY; 3:22-cv-06004- IVAN ATANASSOV; RISA TMC BRODY; AIMEE SWEET; DAMARIS BRICI; BRIANNA HALL, OPINION Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. LEGACY HEALTH, a public benefit corporation; NORTHWEST ACUTE CARE SPECIALISTS, an Oregon professional corporation; DOES 1-10, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Tiffany M. Cartwright, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 20, 2025* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 WILLIAMS V. LEGACY HEALTH Seattle, Washington Filed May 6, 2026 Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Richard A. Paez, and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge McKeown SUMMARY** Employment Discrimination The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Legacy Health in a Title VII action brought by Legacy employees who were denied religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccination policy. The panel held that Title VII requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employees’ religious beliefs unless doing so would cause “undue hardship” to the employer’s business. Under Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), showing more than a de minimis cost is insufficient to establish undue hardship under Title VII. Rather, undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. Under Petersen v. Snohomish Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2025), the substantial additional costs need not be exclusively monetary. They can extend to health and safety ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  WILLIAMS V. LEGACY HEALTH 3 costs and operational burdens as well as traditional financial burdens. In addition, costs need not be realized prior to raising an undue-hardship defense. A risk of undue hardship will suffice, provided it is realistic and not merely conceivable or hypothetical. The panel concluded that Legacy, a regional healthcare system, showed undue hardship in the context of the COVID-19 Delta variant and a predicted surge of hospitalizations across Legacy’s locations. Granting the employees’ exemption requests posed three risks. First, there was a risk that the employees would become ill and cause staffing issues from their absence. Second, the employees’ risk of infection posed concerns for other staff needed to treat patients. Finally, the transmission risk would also affect Legacy’s patient population. Taken together, Legacy’s “realistic” concerns threatened a “substantial” burden on its business of providing quality healthcare. COUNSEL Corey E. Parker, The Appellate Law Firm, Seattle, Washington; Tracy Tribbett, Pacific Justice Institute, Pasco, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Whitney A. Brown, Stoel Rives LLP, Anchorage, Alaska; Adam S. Belzberg and Aaron R. Doyer, Stoel Rives LLP, Seattle, Washington; Benjamin J. Stone, Kylene Slocum, and Kimberly A. Holdiman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Seattle, Washington; for Defendants-Appellees. 4 WILLIAMS V. LEGACY HEALTH OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: This appeal involves yet