The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Karly Ridings, a registered nurse, in a case against PeaceHealth regarding her request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The court's decision, filed on September 24, 2026, allows Ridings' claims of employment discrimination based on her religious beliefs to move forward. This ruling is significant as it addresses the intersection of employment policies and religious rights, particularly in the context of mandatory health measures.
Karly Ridings, who worked as a nurse for the PeaceHealth hospital system in Oregon, filed a lawsuit after the hospital placed her on indefinite leave without pay or benefits. This action followed her request for a religious exemption from the hospital's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Ridings argued that the vaccine's development involved fetal cells, which conflicted with her Christian beliefs against abortion. The case, Ridings v. PeaceHealth (docket number 24-7282), has garnered attention as it highlights the legal obligations of employers to accommodate employees' religious beliefs.
The dispute began when Oregon's governor mandated that all healthcare workers receive the COVID-19 vaccine. In response, PeaceHealth implemented a vaccination policy that required its employees to comply. Ridings sent a letter to PeaceHealth requesting a religious exemption, citing her beliefs about the vaccine's connection to abortion. Instead of granting her request, PeaceHealth placed her on unpaid leave, prompting Ridings to file a lawsuit claiming that the hospital failed to accommodate her religious beliefs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Oregon state law.
Initially, the district court dismissed Ridings' case, stating that she did not adequately explain the religious basis for her objection to the vaccine. The court did not consider the contents of Ridings' religious exemption letter, which she had not attached to her original complaint. Instead, the court ruled that her complaint lacked sufficient detail to support her claims. Ridings appealed the decision, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case.
The Ninth Circuit, in its ruling, reversed the district court's decision and emphasized that the lower court erred by not considering Ridings' religious exemption letter. Judge Kenneth K. Lee stated, "We hold that the district court erred in not considering the contents of Ridings’ religious exemption letter in deciding the motion to dismiss." The court noted that the letter was central to Ridings' claim and should have been included in the assessment of her case.
Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit found that Ridings had sufficiently established a prima facie case for religious discrimination. The court explained that under Title VII, an employee must demonstrate that their religious beliefs conflict with an employment requirement and that they informed their employer of this conflict. The court concluded that Ridings' letter clearly articulated her religious objections to the vaccine, thus meeting the necessary legal standards.
This ruling has broader implications for employees seeking religious accommodations in the workplace. It reinforces the principle that employers must consider the religious beliefs of their employees seriously and accommodate them unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The court's decision also highlights the importance of providing detailed explanations for religious objections, as Ridings did in her letter.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling is a reminder that courts will not question the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. Judge Lee remarked, "Courts generally cannot question the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs: Judges may wear robes, but we are not men and women of cloth who can opine on religious convictions." This statement underscores the legal protections afforded to individuals asserting religious discrimination claims.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit's decision allows Ridings to amend her complaint and provide additional details about her religious exemption request. This outcome is significant for Ridings, who faced the loss of income and health insurance during her pregnancy due to PeaceHealth's actions.
As the case progresses, it may set a precedent for similar disputes involving religious accommodations in the workplace, particularly in the context of health-related mandates. The ruling emphasizes the need for employers to engage in meaningful dialogue with employees regarding their religious beliefs and to explore potential accommodations that respect those beliefs.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether PeaceHealth plans to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision. However, the case could influence future legal battles over the balance between public health requirements and individual religious rights in the workplace.