Case Explained: DUDEN V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-12 Docket: 4:23-cv-05047-SAB The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Washington Department of Corrections on Kevin Duden’s failure-to-accommodate claims brought under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The court held that the employer successfully demonstrated that accommodating Duden’s religious objection to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would impose an undue hardship. Applying the standard from *Groff v. DeJoy*, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), the panel determined that the burden on DOC was substantial in the overall context of its business, citing undisputed evidence that thirty percent of Duden’s duties required in-person instruction of inmates in a high-security prison where internet access is prohibited, and that alternative protocols like masking or social distancing failed to prevent significant infection rates and staff deaths. The court further clarified that undue hardship analysis under Title VII is not limited to exclusively monetary costs but includes health, safety, and operational burdens, noting that DOC’s failure to provide specific financial cost data did not preclude a finding of undue hardship given the reliance on these non-monetary factors. Additionally, the court declined to consider Duden’s new argument regarding inmate vaccination policies raised for the first time in his reply brief. Consequently, the judgment remains in favor of the defendants, and no further relief is granted to the appellant. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.