Lauren Petersen records as attorney Jennifer Kennedy issues a video statement after a press conference March 14 at Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue headquarters in Monroe, flanked by three of the eight firefighters suing their employer for religious discrimination, from left to right, Kevin Gleason, Ryan Stupey and David Petersen.
Photo by Michael Whitney.
MONROE — A group of eight firefighters who refused the COVID vaccine on religious beliefs and sued Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue (SRFR) for back pay while they were placed on unpaid leave had their lawsuit closed down by a U.S. District Court judge two months ago, and are now appealing to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The eight are seeking to recoup back wages with the claim SRFR did not properly accommodate their religious exemptions.
The start of the Ninth Circuit case opens with a settlement mediation conversation tentatively scheduled for March 21 this week.
The group’s new attorney Jennifer Kennedy said she thinks she can prevail. “The Ninth Circuit knows the law,” she said, almost dismissive of the district court’s decision.
On Jan. 25, Western Washington District Court Judge Thomas Zilly issued his summary judgment favoring Snohomish Regional Fire.
Zilly agreed with SRFR’s hired medical expert that
unvaccinated firefighters could spread COVID-19 more easily than vaccinated firefighters, which to him met the threshold of being a hardship to have unvaccinated firefighters mingling with vaccinated firefighters versus having them stay home.
The state’s vaccine mandate came into force October 2021.
Frontline firefighters got wrapped in because their medic work categorizes them as health care providers.
Forty-six SRFR firefighters — almost one-fourth of the firefighter roster — sought exemptions. Many got them.
Snohomish Regional Fire searched for a way to accommodate them but said in court it didn’t have alternate jobs off the front lines to offer.
Its solution arrived days before deadline, where the district and fire union negotiated an agreement to have the exempted unvaccinated burn through sick leave hours and then be able to take an unpaid personal leave of absence which retained their rank and seniority. That policy went on for months until the district revised its policy in mid-2022 and offered the ability to return to work. The state’s vaccine mandate was still in force when this new offer came.
Firefighters in the lawsuit who the Tribune spoke with said being on unpaid leave cost them between $100,000 to $200,000 in pay and benefits, plus may have delayed their ability to advance in rank. Kennedy estimates between the eight the cost tallies to $1.5 million in unpaid wages.
“We were let go for eight months” and then brought back, “what was the point?” said Ryan Stupey, a firefighter in the lawsuit.
Being put on unpaid leave upended families, said firetruck driver David Petersen, also in the lawsuit.
“It was a calling to serve in this community ... to have it taken away was something I never expected,” he said.
Other fire departments in the same boat managed around it by accommodating their employees’ exemptions, said ladder driver Kevin Gleason, another of the eight.
A few left firefighting altogether because of the situation, Gleason said.
Some sought alternate employment while waiting, Kennedy said in a statement for a video shoot March 14.
The firefighters in this situation were denied state unemployment benefits, said Lauren Petersen, a wife to a firefighter.
The eight sued in late 2022 for back pay after returning to their jobs at SRFR.
For the appeal, Kennedy intends to relate the firefighters’ situation to the Supreme Court’s 2023 “Groff” decision.
Groff was a mail deliverer who sued the U.S. Postal Service saying it didn’t accommodate his strongly held religious beliefs against working on any Sunday Sabbath. Instead, he was punished for not working his scheduled Sundays.
Employment law professionals say the decision in Groff vs. DeJoy raised the threshold where an employer must show it would cost the business the hardship of a lot of money before it can deny a worker a religious accommodation.
Groff was also a case Zilly referenced for his decision.
The firefighters held sort of a press conference March 14 in front of SRFR’s headquarters in Monroe ahead of the fire board meeting and spread a push to rally.
A handful of supporters called on the fire board to simply settle, saying SRFR’s legal fees are racking up.
A few county directors of emergency medical services gave guidelines to fire departments on whether to accommodate exempted firefighters based on
public risk. Many departments in Snohomish and Pierce counties, for example, accommodated with masking and routine COVID testing. King County’s director of emergency medical services firmly advised fire departments to not accommodate exempted firefighters, and some at King County departments were ultimately let go.
Among the firefighters’ religious exemptions, some of the eight say it is a sin to inject COVID vaccines that used stem cells of a previously aborted fetus during the vaccine’s research and development (none of the vaccines released to the public contain fetal cells, a fact sheet from the nonprofit Public Health Association of British Columbia notes).
David Petersen, for example, said he was against it because he felt would be violating his connection with God to inject the COVID vaccine.
Others said they see taking the vaccine as violating the principle their body is a temple belonging to God, which commands people to stay free of impurities.
Snohomish Regional Fire said in court documents it only thinks two of the eight actually carry bona fide religious beliefs against taking the vaccine. Judge Zilly discarded that as not relevant in making his judgment.
