The panel denied a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel majority affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a Title VII action alleging discrimination on the basis of religion by plaintiff’s employer in connection with a COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

In its opinion, the panel majority held that the plaintiff failed sufficiently to plead a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with her employer’s policy requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, absent an approved exception, and she therefore failed to state a failure-to-accommodate claim.

Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Forrest, joined by Judges R. Nelson, Bress, Bumatay, VanDyke, and Tung, wrote that, in an effort to prevent religion from being used as an insincere excuse for avoiding general public-health measures implemented to address the COVID-19 pandemic, the court held that plaintiffs claiming religious discrimination must show a clear nexus between their religious convictions and their choice not to comply with those measures that does not involve “secular” knowledge. The court also held that in establishing such nexus, plaintiffs may not rely on the invocation of prayer, without more. But this standard necessarily requires judging The panel denied a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel majority affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a Title VII action alleging discrimination on the basis of religion by plaintiff’s employer in connection with a COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

In its opinion, the panel majority held that the plaintiff failed sufficiently to plead a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with her employer’s policy requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, absent an approved exception, and she therefore failed to state a failure-to-accommodate claim.

Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Forrest, joined by Judges R. Nelson, Bress, Bumatay, VanDyke, and Tung, wrote that, in an effort to prevent religion from being used as an insincere excuse for avoiding general public-health measures implemented to address the COVID-19 pandemic, the court held that plaintiffs claiming religious discrimination must show a clear nexus between their religious convictions and their choice not to comply with those measures that does not involve “secular” knowledge. The court also held that in establishing such nexus, plaintiffs may not rely on the invocation of prayer, without more. But this standard necessarily requires judging religious belief, and it is a significant misstep that risks reducing the freedom of belief to the freedom of accepted belief.

Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Tung, joined by Judges R. Nelson, Collins, Lee, Bress, Bumatay, and VanDyke, wrote that the panel majority legally erred by recharacterizing the plaintiff’s clearly religious objection to a company policy as “purely secular” merely because the objection turned in part on a secular consideration.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/15/23-3710.pdf