He worked there for 30 years - then chose unpaid leave over the jab
A veteran chemistry teacher's three-decade career with a California school district ended over a needle he would not take.
The state's Court of Appeal on October 7, 2026 affirmed summary judgment for Burbank Unified School District, ruling that indefinite unpaid leave was a lawful religious accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The teacher had taught high school chemistry for the district since 1992. In September 2021, the Board of Education approved Resolution 7, requiring all staff to be vaccinated or obtain an exemption. Unvaccinated employees were barred from campus after October 25, 2021.
He sought a religious exemption. The district granted it - along with roughly 100 others. But granting the exemption did not mean campus access.
The district assessed every exempted employee's role. Five workers in isolated office jobs got alternatives: twice-weekly testing, masks, plastic barriers, six-foot distancing. For anyone with regular student contact, the only option was unpaid leave.
The district told him it was "unable to identify a reasonable accommodation, other than unpaid leave, that would not pose an undue burden on the District."
He pushed back. He proposed PCR testing. He appealed to the superintendent. He filed a formal complaint alleging religious discrimination. Each avenue closed.
His paid leave ran out by March 2022. He faced $951.34 a month in health insurance premiums. By January 2023, he had taken a job at a school with no vaccine mandate. He resigned from the district effective June 2024.
He sued under FEHA - religious discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the district. The Court of Appeal agreed.
Unpaid leave eliminated the conflict between the teacher's faith and the vaccination requirement, the court found, and he kept the right to return once the mandate lifted. It cited a 1986 ruling, where the US Supreme Court held unpaid leave can be a reasonable religious accommodation.
The teacher argued the arrangement amounted to unlawful "segregation" under FEHA regulations. The court rejected that. He offered no evidence to counter the district's hardship case - his contention that one more unvaccinated person on campus posed "no meaningful hardship at all" was, the court said, "argument, not evidence."
The published decision carries precedential weight in California. For HR teams weighing accommodation requests, the practical signal: unpaid leave holds up when the role demands in-person contact, the employer shows genuine hardship, and the policy applies consistently.
This is a final appellate ruling on the merits. No further proceedings were indicated.
