Year-Long Unpaid Leave Was Reasonable Accommodation

Thursday, October 8, 2026

Page 1

Court of Appeal:

Year-Long Unpaid Leave Was Reasonable Accommodation

Opinion Says No Error in Summary Judgment Favoring Burbank School District in Lawsuit by Teacher Who Claimed He Was Discriminated Against for Seeking Religious Exemption to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

Div. Eight of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday that summary judgment was rightly granted to the Burbank Unified School District in a lawsuit, filed by a chemistry teacher with more than 25 years of experience, who asserted discrimination claims based on the body’s failure to accommodate his request for a religious exemption to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate by any other means than an extended unpaid leave.

Douglas Smith, a devout Christian who said that his faith compelled him to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, filed his complaint against the district in February 2023, asserting religious discrimination and retaliation claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), found at Government Code §12900 et seq., based on his having been placed on unpaid leave from the fall of 2021 until he was invited to return to his job for the 2024-25 school year.

Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. authored yesterday’s opinion, acknowledging that “[n]o one disputes that Smith established a prima facie case of religious discrimination” but saying:

“The trial court correctly found the District met its burden of establishing unpaid leave was the only reasonable accommodation the District could offer to unvaccinated teachers that did not pose an undue burden.”

Wiley cited §12940(l)(1), which provides that “[i]t is an unlawful” for an employer “to discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a conflict between the person’s religious belief…and any employment requirement, unless the employer…demonstrates that it has explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating” but is “unable” to do so “without undue hardship.”

Sec. 12926(u), in turn, defines “[u]ndue hardship” as “an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors,” including “the nature and cost of the accommodation needed.”

Religious-Exemption Request

Smith claimed that his employer granted his religious exemption request in the fall of 2021, after the school board approved the mandate in connection with a plan to return to on-campus instruction, but that the defendant informed him that it was “unable to identify a reasonable accommodation, other than unpaid leave, that would not pose an undue burden on the District.” The defendant told him that his paid leave would run out on March 7, 2022, and he would be required to pay $951.34 per month after that point to avoid cancellation of his health and other benefits.

He appealed the decision internally, arguing that the school district was not respecting his “religious sovereignty” because it could allow him to return to the classroom with twice-weekly testing, masking, and social distancing requirements or offer him a remote position. The employer rejected the challenge, finding that in-person instruction was essential and his presence on campus would increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission.

Five non-teaching employees were allowed to return to campus after filing exemption requests because their job responsibilities did not require in-person contact with other parties. They were required to test twice a week, work behind a plastic barrier, wear masks, and maintain six feet of distance from everyone else.

In early 2024, the district invited Smith to return to work for the 2024-25 school year as the vaccine mandate had been lifted, but he had, in January 2023, accepted a new job working for the Magnolia Public School charter system.

Summary Judgment

The district filed its motion for summary judgment in February 2025, attaching a declaration by then-Assistant Superintendent of Education Services John Paramo, who said:

“The undue burden considered by the District, when determining what reasonable accommodation could be offered to employees exempted from the vaccine mandate, was the logistical difficulties to ensure adequate coverage of its classrooms, ability to meet the state’s mandates for required supervision of students, and avoiding disruption to the education, activities, and services to its students, while providing the safest environment to learn and work for [the District’s] students and staff.”

Then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer (now retired) granted the defendant’s motion in May 2025, ruling that the district had satisfied its burden of showing that unpaid leave was the only reasonable accommodation that did not impose an undue burden. She rejected Smith’s contention that the defendant failed to consider alternatives, finding that the plaintiff offered “nothing more than mere speculation” about other available options.

On appeal, Smith pointed to a FEHA implementing regulation which specifies, in relevant part:

“Unless expressly requested by an employee, an accommodation is not reasonable if it requires segregation of an employee from customers or the general public.”

Based on the regulatory language, he argued that unpaid leave cannot be said to be a “reasonable accommodation” because it would, by definition, segregate him from the public and those he would serve in the classroom. Wiley responded:

“Given the record’s undisputed facts about the dangers of COVID-19 and the District’s obligation to provide safety to its employees and students, we reject Smith’s literal reading of the regulation’s last sentence. The fact that unpaid leave necessarily resulted in segregation of unvaccinated employees does not automatically disqualify it as a reasonable accommodation.”

As to Smith’s assertion that Killefer failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to him “by accepting [the District’s] mere recitation of potential hardships as proof that allowing Mr. Smith to return to work would pose an undue hardship on [the District’s] business operations,” the jurist opined:

“This argument is incorrect. Giving Smith the benefit of the doubt on summary judgment does not require courts to disregard the District’s evidence.”

Most Effective Way

He continued:

“Smith did not dispute the Board’s determination that requiring full vaccination of the District’s employees was the most effective way to protect the health and safety of its employees and students. He provided no evidence to counter Paramo’s declaration about the logistical burden the District would face if it allowed accommodations other than unpaid leave for teachers….Instead, Smith claimed ‘that allowing one more unvaccinated person onto a campus with potentially hundreds of such persons posed no meaningful hardship at all.’ This is argument, not evidence.”

Wiley added:

“The District treated all vaccine exemption requests the same way: it granted each request, gave all exempted teachers the same accommodation of unpaid leave, and gave alternative accommodations only to non-teacher employees who did not have daily contact with others. The trial court was right to reject Smith’s allegation that intentional religious discrimination motivated the District to place him on unpaid leave.”

The case is Smith v. Burbank Unified School District, 2026 S.O.S. 3207.

Acting for the plaintiff were Los Angeles-area attorneys Louis Benowitz of Benowitz Law Corporation, Sunjay Bhatia of Bhatia Law Firm PC, and Jeffrey Lewis of Jeffrey Lewis Law APC. Marlon Craig Wadlington and Scott Dale Danforth of the Cerritos office of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, together with Mark R. Bresee of the firm’s San Diego location, represented the defendant.