Can a person consider scientific facts in requesting a religious exemption?
How else would you protect your body as the temple of the Holy Spirit?
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said no yesterday:
Detweiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center: 23-3710.pdf (9th Cir. 2025).
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said yes in February for one of our clients:
Leah Prida v. Option Care Enters., Inc., No. 23-3936 (6th Cir. 2025)
These two cases create a significant circuit split on how to evaluate religious objections to COVID-19 testing requirements under Title VII. Here’s the key conflict:
Ninth Circuit (Detwiler): Requires courts to parse religious beliefs to determine if the “operative belief” is truly religious or merely secular. The court found Detwiler’s belief that testing swabs were carcinogenic was “personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research,” despite her religious framing about her body being a temple.
Sixth Circuit (Prida): Takes a deferential approach, holding that when plaintiffs allege both religious and secular reasons, the secular components don’t negate the religious ones at the motion to dismiss stage. Courts should read complaints holistically and not artificially segregate religious from secular beliefs.
The Ninth Circuit requires a stronger showing of religious nexus even at the motion to dismiss stage, while the Sixth Circuit applies a more lenient standard consistent with general Rule 12(b)(6) principles. The circuits disagree on whether courts should separate “truly religious” from “purely secular” components of a belief system. The Sixth Circuit explicitly aligned itself with the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in taking a more permissive approach. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged creating a split with these circuits.
This case presents strong grounds for Supreme Court review because:
Clear Circuit Split: There’s now a 6-1 circuit split, with the Ninth Circuit standing alone against a growing consensus.
Important Federal Question: The proper interpretation of Title VII’s religious protections is a significant issue affecting workplaces nationwide.
Practical Impact: Employers need uniform guidance on religious accommodation obligations, especially given ongoing workplace health and safety requirements.
Recurring Issue: vaccine related religious accommodation cases continue to arise, making this an issue needing resolution.
The split is pronounced because both cases had almost the same facts - religious objections to COVID testing based on concerns about chemicals on testing swabs, coupled with “body as a temple” religious beliefs. Yet the circuits reached opposite conclusions on essentially the same legal question.
This circuit conflict makes these cases prime candidates for Supreme Court review to create a uniform national standard for evaluating religious accommodation claims under Title VII.
I agree there are strong grounds for Supreme Court review. There should be a uniform national standard. The Ninth Circuit is an outlier on this issue. How can a person be expected to ignore scientific facts when claiming a religious exemption?
The secular/religious reason for exemption from experimentation on my body by the state is not whether the state determines if my body is actually a temple or not.
The sincerely held belief ( by the holder and measured by the object of belief - God ), is that my body is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thus owned by God, not the state, and that God has made me the sole accountable steward of that body, not the state.
A secular state is not qualified to evaluate my religious belief, by definition and by the secular approved principle of separation of church and state.