Monday, August 17, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit Judges Differ Over What Qualifies As ‘Religious Belief’ Under California Law
In Employment Discrimination Case, Bumatay Criticizes Majority for Dismissing Party’s Scripture-Based Reasons for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine as ‘Secular’ Preference
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a plaintiff’s assertion that she was precluded from taking a COVID-19 shot as mandated by her employer, based on her sincere belief as a practicing Catholic that her body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, does not qualify as “religious” under a California employment discrimination law even if the party provided specific Biblical references as support for her assertions.
Thursday’s memorandum opinion cites the September 2025 Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center decision, in which the majority of a three-judge panel held that an Oregon plaintiff had failed to sufficiently plead a bona fide religious belief under federal and state law where she asserted that that she came to the position that injecting herself with a potentially harmful substance conflicted with the Christian principle her body is a temple by way of prayer.
Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Circuit Judge John B. Owens signed Thursday’s majority decision, which rejects the plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish Detwiler because she alleged that her belief was derived from Biblical sources rather than based on personal prayer. Saying that the party’s “reliance on scriptural citation, without more, does not establish that her objection is religious,” the judges opined:
“The relevant question is not how the believer arrived at her conviction, but rather what the conviction is….In both Detwiler and this case, the plaintiffs articulated a general religious belief—that the body is a temple—but applied that belief through personal, secular judgments about harm….The pathway by which each plaintiff connected the general principle to the specific objection, whether through prayer or through scriptural interpretation, does not alter the secular character of the objection itself.”
Fundamental Principle
Dissenting, Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatay accused the majority of violating the “fundamental” principle that judges are to avoid delving into the debate over what qualifies as “religion.” He wrote:
“[The majority’s] construction of [the plaintiff’s] claims ignores the religious basis for her judgments of harm, that she considers herself religiously compelled not to introduce anything that could cause harm into her body, and that she must avoid any medications that put her in the position of God. The majority also doesn’t address [her] specific claim that the COVID vaccine works as ‘gene therapy,’ which she believes ‘alters what God made (literally assuming the position of God).’ ”
Asserting the religious belief was Maria Ledezma, a Bay Area pharmacist who requested a religious exemption from her employer, Optum Services Inc., in 2021 after the company demanded that all employees be inoculated against COVID-19. After her bid was denied, she was allegedly fired on Dec. 31 for non-compliance with the policy.
Ledezma obtained right to sue from the California Civil Rights Department in March 2023 and filed a complaint against Optum in Sonoma Superior Court in November 2023, asserting claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant, a citizen of Delaware and Minnesota, removed the matter to federal court.
In February 2024, District Court Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claim based on timeliness concerns. Ledezma then filed an amended pleading asserting only the FEHA cause of action.
On Jan. 29 of last year, Chhabria granted Optum’s motion for summary judgment, saying:
“While Ledezma cites Bible verses that discuss the body as a temple, she cites no evidence that her belief about the vaccine—that the vaccine is harmful and is the type of foreign substance that should not enter the temple of her body—is itself religious.”
Religious-Discrimination Claim
Murguia and Owens noted:
“To establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under FEHA, an employee must show that she held a sincere religious belief that conflicted with an employment requirement, that she informed her employer of both the belief and the conflict, and that she was discharged…because she could not fulfill the job requirement.”
They pointed to Detwiler as standing for the conclusion that, while a general belief that one’s body is a temple “might be religious,” that plaintiff’s “specific objection to testing rested on a ‘personal[] medical judgment’ about harm” even if it was purportedly arrived at by way of prayer. Applying those principles to Ledezma’s claim, they opined:
“Ledezma’s objection is grounded in personal health preferences and a self-directed judgment about what substances are harmful. This is precisely the kind of ‘blanket privilege’ we rejected in Detwiler….Invoking a broad principle that sounds in religious terms—that her body is a temple—does not transform her personal health judgment into a religious mandate.”
At oral argument, Ledezma argued that her claim should survive because her scripturally derived beliefs were “much more specific,” and so more religious, than the ones at issue in Detwiler, which were purportedly arrived at based on a personal consultation with God. Unpersuaded, Murguia and Owens said:
“Ledezma’s reliance on scriptural citation, without more, does not establish that her objection is religious. As we held in Detwiler,….‘[i]nvocation of prayer, without more, is…insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.’ The same is true of invocations of Scripture. To hold otherwise would allow employees to insulate any personal preference from workplace requirements merely by making broad references to religious texts or principles.”
The jurists declared:
“Ledezma’s objection to the Covid-19 vaccine, though sincerely held, is not religious in nature. Therefore, she cannot establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination….The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Optum.”
Bumatay’s View
Saying that “the majority extends this court’s flawed conclusion in Detwiler…, ignores the substance of [the] claims, and disregards the proper summary judgment standard,” Bumatay argued:
“The majority asserts that Ledezma’s claim is ‘materially identical to the one at issue in Detwiler’ because it centers around her belief that the body is the temple of the holy spirit—and dismisses the remainder of her assertions as mere secular judgment….And its construction of her statements…ignores the plausible interpretation of her claims as religious in nature. This violates our obligation at summary judgment….”
Bumatay noted that courts “have chosen to model their interpretation of FEHA…off our interpretation of Title VII” and commented:
“Title VII defines religion expansively….[and] includes more than ‘practices specifically mandated by an employee’s religion,’…including ‘religious belief[s]…not reflected in a biblical passage or scripture,’…and beliefs that ‘could be regarded as non-religious human values[]’….”
Adding that “[t]his deferential approach is confirmed by how the framers understood religious belief,” he opined:
“[W]hat we do in Detwiler, and repeat here—telling plaintiffs that their objections to work requirements aren’t religious because their religion doesn’t actually conflict with them—is anathema to longstanding practice and our understanding of religion at the founding.”
The jurist contended:
“Today, the majority extends our precedent in Detwiler and reads specific religious beliefs—not just the invocation of prayer—out of FEHA. Fortunately, though, this won’t affect our interpretation of Title VII….[O]ur interpretation of FEHA would not control how we interpret Title VII going forward. Doing so would violate basic supremacy principles that provide that ‘the Laws of the United States…shall be the supreme Law of the Land[.]’ ”
The case is Ledezma v. Optum Services Inc., 25-684.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company