Snohomish Co. firefighters who refused vaccine appeal to US Supreme Court
Published 11:50 am Friday, April 17, 2026
EVERETT — Eight firefighters, placed on unpaid leave for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, have appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lawyers for the group filed a petition Thursday with the court, seven months after a federal appellate court ruled against them on Sept. 2.
The petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify that an employer must show “actual undue hardship,” not reasonable concern of undue hardship, in order to deny religious accommodations, according to a press release from First Liberty Institute, a law firm exclusively focused on religious freedom cases.
The Supreme Court receives around 7,000 to 8,000 petitions each term, but only grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases.
Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue declined to comment Friday, said spokesperson Peter Mongillo in an email.
In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue. This decision upheld a lower court ruling denying back pay, accrued vacation days and other benefits lost while on leave to the workers named in the lawsuit.
The case stems from Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate in 2021. Snohomish Fire & Rescue placed 11 firefighters on unpaid leave for not complying with the mandate.
Eight of firefighters — David Petersen, Beau Watson, Jay Stickney, Evan Merritt, Kevin Gleason, Riley Korf, Norm Alan Peterson II and Ryan Stupey — filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in November 2022.
All eight sought a religious exemption to the state mandate, but Snohomish Fire & Rescue, known in court documents as SRFR, placed them on indefinite unpaid leave, citing that the health and safety risks caused an undue hardship.
The firefighters alleged the leave of absence was not a “lawful accommodation,” and they are entitled to compensation for “financial losses,” according to the complaint.
In January 2024, U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly sided with SRFR, ruling the department was within its rights to deny the requested accommodation.
They appealed their case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with attorney Jennifer Kennedy arguing the district court had “mishandled” the case and ignored evidence that the fire department could have reasonably accommodated the men without burden.
In considering its decision, the appellate court declined to scrutinize the firefighters’ religious beliefs but held that SRFR could not reasonably accommodate the firefighters without undue hardship, according to court documents.
Court documents said SRFR showed it faced substantial burdens by accommodating the vaccine exemptions, including the health and safety of its firefighters and the public, the large number of firefighters seeking accommodations, the risk to operations, costs of widespread absences, potential loss of a lucrative contract and the risk of additional liability.
First Liberty Institute alleges that since vaccinated SRFR firefighters continued to work with unvaccinated responders from neighboring departments, it calls SRFR’s health concerns into question, the release said.
Filed by First Liberty Institute, law firm Williams & Connolly, Church State Council and Kennedy, the petition alleges the previous decisions undermine the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which raised the legal standard for denying religious accommodations. Groff was another First Liberty Institute case.
Vaccines are widely considered safe by health officials and can help prevent severe symptoms from COVID-19.
Jenna Millikan: 425-339-3035; jenna.millikan@heraldnet.com; X: @JennaMillikan
