His religious exemption failed - and so did every claim that followed
A Hermosa Beach police officer who refused to comply with his employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate has lost his appeal against termination.
The officer had worked for the city since 2009. In September 2021, the city council required all employees to be vaccinated by November 12, 2021, as a condition of employment. Religious and medical exemptions were available; non-compliance meant separation.
He applied for a religious exemption on October 1, 2021. On January 5, 2022, the city denied it - finding his request was not based on a sincerely held religious belief and that accommodation would cause “undue hardship.” He had until February 19 to get vaccinated. He asked for more time. The answer was no.
He did not get vaccinated.
On February 22, the city issued a Notice of Forfeiture of Employment and placed him on paid leave. The notice framed the separation as non-disciplinary - a failure to meet a condition of employment, not misconduct.
He requested a hearing. Days later, the city learned he had filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the former Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
A conference followed on March 1. The officer attended with counsel and argued he had not forfeited his employment. On March 9, 2022, the city terminated him.
He sued on several fronts. He argued the termination triggered protections under California’s Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) - a law guaranteeing officers procedural safeguards when they face “punitive action.” He also claimed retaliation for the EEOC/DFEH complaints under Labor Code section 1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the city. The California Court of Appeal affirmed on October 15, 2026.
The POBRA question was the central issue. The court drew a clean line: POBRA applies when an officer faces discipline tied to misconduct or performance. A vaccination requirement applied to all employees as a job qualification is different. The officer was not terminated for anything he did - he was terminated because he no longer met a minimum employment condition.
On retaliation, the timeline worked against him. The city had already denied the exemption and set the vaccination deadline before learning of the EEOC/DFEH complaints around February 25. The court found the city would have made the same decision regardless.
For public-sector HR teams, the practical takeaway: when a health-related employment qualification is applied uniformly and separation follows non-compliance, officer procedural protections may not attach.
The matter was decided through summary judgment. The trial court ruled for the city, and the appellate court affirmed.
