Tuesday, July 28, 2026
Page 3
Ninth Circuit:
Action Over Kaiser Group’s Vaccine Mandate Is Resurrected
Opinion Says Trial Judge Too Quick to Dismiss Discrimination Claims of Plaintiff, Who Was Fired After Religious Objection, Based on Wrong View of Demand That Party Give Notice of Conflict With Beliefs
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a lawsuit filed by an employee of a Kaiser Permanente affiliate alleging that the group discriminated against her in violation of federal and state law by terminating her employment after she submitted a request for a religious exemption to the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, writing for the court, declared in Friday’s opinion that Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California erred in dismissing, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) on the ground that she had failed to show that she gave adequate notice to her employer of the conflict between the policy and her beliefs.
Saying that the chief judge wrongly conflated the notice requirement with a question as to the sincerity of her convictions, Forrest wrote:
“The notice requirement cannot be used as an end run around the ‘delicate inquiry,’…and a court’s ‘narrow function,’…in assessing the sincerity and reasonableness of an employee’s asserted religious belief. The notice requirement measures only the sufficiency of the employer’s information about the employee’s religious beliefs or practices, not the validity of those beliefs and practices….Nor does the notice requirement invite employers or courts to consider whether an employee’s ‘religion mandates the employee’s adherence’ to the beliefs or practices asserted.”
Senior Circuit Judges Richard A. Paez and Carlos T. Bea joined in the decision.
Additional Claim
In a concurrently filed memorandum opinion, signed by Bea and Forrest, the court additionally resurrected a privacy claim based on the California Constitution, reasoning that the plaintiff’s assertion that she was a fully-remote employee who presented “no risk she would spread COVID-19 to patients or employees” was sufficient to overcome dismissal, saying:
“[W]e conclude that the facts and circumstances related to the reasonableness of [her] privacy expectation in her medical decision-making are disputed and therefore are not properly resolved at this stage.”
Paez dissented to this conclusion, asserting:
“[I]n my view, the relevant facts are either undisputed or immaterial to an antecedent legal question: Whether a private health care provider’s policy requiring employees to either obtain a COVID-19 vaccination or qualify for a religious or medical exemption constitutes a ‘serious invasion of privacy’ under the California Constitution….This issue lacks ‘controlling precedent’ under California law and ‘could determine the outcome’ of this case….As a matter of ‘[c]omity and federalism,’ I would certify this issue to the California Supreme Court.”
Complaint Filed
The questions arose after the plaintiff, Mimi Weiss, filed a complaint against her former employer, The Permanente Medical Group Inc. (“TPMG”), in July 2023. In her operative complaint, she alleged that she had “a twenty-year career” at the company when it terminated her after she filed a religious exemption, based on her beliefs as a “Christian Jew,” to a policy, announced in August 2021, requiring employees be vaccinated against COVID-19.
In conjunction with her request, she purportedly told the company that she had recently recommitted to her faith as a Messianic Jew and listed Bible passages to support her assertion that Jewish law required her to “maintain h[er] body and blood uncontaminated” and that she “considered these…vaccines to represent a defilement of [her] body, blood and soul.”
On Aug. 30, TPMG provisionally granted her requested exemption but then demanded, three weeks later, that she provide additional information, including what other substances she has refused due to her religious beliefs, if she had “ever taken medications of any kind” as an adult, and an explanation of how “the COVID-19 vaccine” is “different” from other pharmaceuticals.
Declined to Answer
She answered some of the inquiries but declined to respond to questions about what medicines she may have taken in the past, asserting that her medical history is “protected” and “private.” After receiving her supplementary responses, she was terminated for failing to comply with the mandate.
TPMG moved to dismiss her Second Amended Complaint in August 2024, arguing that her pleading failed to allege that sufficient notice was given of an alleged conflict between her religious beliefs and the policy. The following month, Seeborg granted the request, without leave to amend, citing her failure to address concerns raised in earlier orders.
The jurist wrote:
“[N]othing in the SAC addresses the court’s prior determination that Weiss’s accommodation request sought ‘the kind of “blanket privilege” that would have resulted in a “limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted [] obligations” and provided little basis for TPMG to evaluate the extent of her religious beliefs’ potential conflict with the Policy.’ ”
Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant on Sept. 30, 2024.
Religious Accommodation
Forrest pointed out that both Title VII and FEHA require employers to accommodate their employees’ religious convictions and said:
“To state a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that ‘(1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her with or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements.’ ”
Noting that TMPG only asserted notice deficiencies in its motion to dismiss and that “it was on that basis that the district court resolved the case,” Forrest remarked that “we likewise limit our inquiry.”
Citing case law establishing that the requirement only asks that the employee provide sufficient information to allow employer to understand that a conflict exists, she said that courts have recognized that demanding more would invite the company to delve into the religious practices of its workers. Under this standard, she opined:
“[W]e have little difficulty concluding that Weiss satisfied Title VII’s notice requirement. Weiss plausibly alleged that she provided notice of her religious conflict with the Mandate in her initial request for a religious exemption. She identified herself to TPMG management as ‘a Christian Jew’ and described specific religious doctrines that she asserted prohibited her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.”
Initial Request
As to TPMG’s assertion that her initial exemption request failed to demonstrate a conflict because she had received other inoculations in the past, Forrest said:
“Weiss acknowledged that she had previously received vaccinations, and she explained that her present concern arose not because the COVID-19 vaccine was different, but because her religious commitment had changed. Additionally, TPMG’s initial approval of Weiss’s request for a religious exemption demonstrates that TPMG understood she was asserting a religious conflict with the company’s Mandate.”
She continued:
“The record does indicate that TPMG doubted the sincerity of Weiss’s claimed religious conflict. TPMG’s request for supplemental information explained that, in reviewing employees’ religious-exemption requests, ‘it has come to our attention that many employees have submitted similar or nearly identical exemption requests containing language that was taken verbatim from various free and paid template forms available on the internet.’ Based on this and other findings, TPMG further scrutinized Weiss’s request….”
Declaring that “[t]he sincerity of the employee’s professed beliefs and whether the employee adequately notified her employer that she has a religious conflict with an employment requirement are separate inquiries,” the judge wrote:
“Because Weiss plausibly alleged that she informed TPMG of her ‘belief and conflict’ with the Mandate, she has established the second element of the prima facie case for purposes of the pleading stage….The district court’s conclusion otherwise was error.”
The case is Weiss v. The Permanente Medical Group Inc., 24-6609.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company