Its own data showed just a 14 percent placement rate - and the judges noticed
A federal appeals court told employers that inviting workers into a "reassignment process" is not the same as offering a real accommodation.
On August 21, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed part of a lower court's ruling that had dismissed religious discrimination claims from five former Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife employees. The workers had received religious exemptions from a state COVID-19 vaccine mandate in 2021, then were told they could not keep their jobs.
Rather than a concrete offer, the department pointed them to a reassignment process. Its letters said, "Reassignment remains a possibility, although opportunities may be limited." The employees never completed the process, and the department fired them.
The district court sided with the employer, holding that offering the process met its duty under Title VII. The appeals court disagreed.
Under Title VII, once an employee shows a religious conflict, the employer must take the first step and propose an accommodation that removes it - an alternate job or a changed arrangement - while preserving pay and conditions. Only then does the employee have to cooperate. A process, the panel said, is not a proposal.
The numbers did not help the department. Its own data showed that of 122 religious accommodation requests, only 17 were granted - a 14 percent rate. The record said nothing about what those jobs paid or whether they resolved any religious conflict. The one detailed example cut against the employer: a worker, who was not part of the appeal, was offered a job at half his salary and left because "the pay cut was not feasible."
The panel said the process offered "little more than a fig leaf."
The court revived Title VII claims for three of the employees and state discrimination claims for all five, sending the case back for further proceedings. It affirmed summary judgment against two other employees' Title VII claims on procedural grounds - one for failing to exhaust remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the other for filing suit too late.
For HR, the practical takeaway is direct. Pointing staff toward a vague internal process, especially one with a low placement rate and wording that makes success sound unlikely, may not satisfy Title VII. Employers who cannot accommodate should be ready to show real, individualized options - or prove that accommodation would cause undue hardship. The panel pointed to Groff v. DeJoy, where the Supreme Court said undue hardship means a burden that is "substantial in the overall context of an employer's business." Assertions, the court stressed, are not enough.
