Firefighters Seek More Time to Petition U.S. Supreme Court in Vaccine Accommodation Case
Eight Washington firefighters who lost a religious accommodation case in the Ninth Circuit have asked the U.S. Supreme Court for additional time to file a petition for certiorari. The request arises out of Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, a lawsuit challenging how the department handled requests for religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate.
The application, filed March 4, 2026, asks Justice Elena Kagan—who serves as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit—for a 30-day extension of the deadline to file a petition seeking Supreme Court review. The firefighters request that the filing deadline be extended from March 17, 2026, to April 16, 2026.
Under Supreme Court Rule 13, a petition for certiorari must generally be filed within 90 days after the court of appeals denies rehearing. The Ninth Circuit issued its decision on September 2, 2025, and denied rehearing and rehearing en banc on December 17, 2025.
Counsel for the firefighters explained that additional time is needed to analyze the legal issues raised by the case and prepare the petition. The application also notes that counsel has been occupied with other Supreme Court filings, appellate deadlines, and oral arguments in unrelated matters.
Background of the Dispute
The underlying case stems from Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s August 2021 proclamation requiring healthcare workers—including firefighters who provide emergency medical services—to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue implemented the mandate but allowed firefighters to request exemptions based on sincerely held religious beliefs. Eight firefighters sought exemptions.
After reviewing the requests and consulting with the firefighters’ union, the department determined that it could not allow unvaccinated firefighters to remain in operational roles without creating an undue hardship. The department concluded that the essential functions of firefighting and EMS required close contact with coworkers and patients, making proposed accommodations such as masking, testing, and distancing impractical.
The department allowed employees with approved religious exemptions to use accrued leave and then take up to one year of unpaid leave. It also permitted firefighters who separated to retain priority rehire rights for two years.
The firefighters filed suit in federal court in November 2022, alleging that the department failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination.
The federal district court granted summary judgment for the fire department. The court assumed the firefighters had established a prima facie case of religious conflict with the vaccination requirement but concluded that accommodating the exemption requests would impose an undue hardship on the department.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a Title VII religious accommodation claim requires a plaintiff to show:
- (1) he had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicts with an employment duty;
- (2) he informed his employer of the belief and conflict; and
- (3) the employer discharged, threatened, or otherwise subjected him to an adverse employment action because of his inability to fulfill the job requirement.
Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that it attempted a reasonable accommodation or that any accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s operations.
The Ninth Circuit assumed the firefighters satisfied the prima facie elements and focused on the undue hardship question. It concluded that Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue had established that accommodating unvaccinated firefighters would impose a substantial burden on its operations.
Among the factors cited by the court were concerns about firefighter and public safety, the large number of employees requesting exemptions, the operational risks associated with absences, potential loss of a contract to provide services to a state prison, and possible liability exposure. Here is our earlier coverage of the Ninth Circuit decision.
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Groff v. DeJoy
Central to the firefighters’ anticipated certiorari petition is the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy.
In Groff, the Court clarified the meaning of “undue hardship” under Title VII. Earlier decisions had sometimes interpreted the standard as requiring only “more than a de minimis cost” to the employer. The Supreme Court rejected that formulation and held that:
- ‘Undue hardship’ is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.
The Court emphasized that it is a fact specific inquiry and further explained that an employer alleging a financial hardship must demonstrate that granting an accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
In their application for additional time, the firefighters argue that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the standard articulated in Groff.
According to the filing, the court improperly resolved disputed factual issues in favor of the employer at the summary judgment stage. The application asserts that the Ninth Circuit discounted evidence offered by the firefighters and relied on the employer’s evidence to conclude that accommodating them would impose an undue hardship.
The firefighters contend that other circuits have taken a different approach when evaluating accommodation disputes under the Groff standard, particularly where the parties present conflicting evidence regarding the existence or extent of hardship.
The application states that clarification from the Supreme Court is needed to ensure that courts properly apply Groff when deciding whether accommodation claims may be resolved at summary judgment.
If the requested extension is granted, the firefighters’ petition for certiorari would be due April 16, 2026.
