Who Defines Religious Belief? PJI Takes Religious Discrimination Case to U.S. Supreme Court

Petition challenges Ninth Circuit ruling permitting courts to determine whether an employee’s stated religious conviction is “truly religious” and protected under federal law

WASHINGTON — Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Sherry Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, et al., asking the nation’s highest court to address the limits of judicial authority to determine whether an employee’s stated religious conviction qualifies as religious under federal civil rights law.

The petition presents significant questions concerning the proper judicial inquiry into religious belief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

Sherry Detwiler served as the Privacy Officer and Director of Health Information for Mid-Columbia Medical Center in The Dalles, Oregon. According to the Ninth Circuit’s published opinion, Detwiler is a practicing Christian who believes her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that she has a religious obligation to avoid introducing substances into her body that she believes could cause physical harm. Her position did not require contact with patients, and the record indicates that she could perform, and at times did perform, her responsibilities remotely. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

In 2021, the Oregon Health Authority adopted a rule requiring health care workers to receive a

COVID-19 vaccination unless they qualified for a medical or religious exception. Detwiler requested a religious exemption from Mid-Columbia Medical Center’s vaccination policy, citing her Christian convictions. The hospital approved her exemption from vaccination but required her to wear personal protective equipment and undergo weekly COVID-19 antigen testing.

Detwiler subsequently sought a religious accommodation from the testing requirement. According to the court record, she objected to nasal swab testing after researching the use of ethylene oxide in sterilizing the swabs. She maintained that submitting to the testing conflicted with her Christian conviction that she had a duty to protect her body from substances she believed could cause physical harm.

Detwiler proposed saliva testing or full-time remote work as alternative accommodations. Mid-Columbia Medical Center denied her request and terminated her employment in December 2021.

PJI filed suit on Detwiler’s behalf under Title VII and Oregon law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed her claims, and Detwiler appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In September 2025, a divided three-judge panel affirmed the dismissal. The panel majority concluded that Detwiler had not sufficiently alleged a bona fide religious belief conflicting with the testing requirement. The majority determined that Detwiler’s concern about the testing swab was personal and secular and that her religious principles and prayer did not sufficiently connect her objection to a “truly religious principle.” Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke dissented.

The Ninth Circuit subsequently declined to rehear the case en banc in April 2026. The denial produced significant disagreement among the court’s judges. Judge Danielle Forrest, joined by five other judges, objected to the panel’s approach to determining whether Detwiler’s objection constituted a religious belief. Judge Eric Tung, joined by six other judges, separately criticized the panel’s treatment of Detwiler’s religious objection as secular because it also involved considerations concerning physical health.

The case also comes before the Supreme Court amid disagreement among the federal courts of appeals over nearly identical religious accommodation claims. According to the Ninth Circuit’s rehearing opinions, the Third Circuit has taken an approach similar to the Ninth Circuit in a case involving a religious objection to COVID-19 nasal testing, while several other federal appellate courts have concluded that the presence of secular considerations does not strip an employee’s objection of its religious character. The Ninth Circuit itself acknowledged decisions from the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth circuits that applied a broader standard for determining whether such claims qualify for Title VII protection.

PJI’s Supreme Court petition identifies a broader split among the federal appellate courts, with seven other courts of appeals having considered substantially similar claims. The Third Circuit has reached a result consistent with the Ninth Circuit, while six other circuits have ruled in favor of employees asserting religious accommodation claims. The disagreement among the circuits presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to establish a uniform standard for determining when an employee’s religious conviction receives protection under Title VII.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces federal workplace discrimination law, defines religion broadly under Title VII. The agency’s guidance concerning religious discrimination addresses the circumstances under which employers may inquire into the religious nature or sincerity of an employee’s asserted belief.

PJI Senior Counsel Matthew McReynolds, who argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and serves as Detwiler’s lead counsel in her Supreme Court petition, said the case carries implications for religious exercise well beyond disputes arising from COVID-era workplace policies.

“Many believers from many religious traditions make health-related decisions after prayer, applying the teachings of their faith, and considering potential benefits and risks,” McReynolds said. “The Ninth Circuit’s holding that such heartfelt and conscientious decisions are purely secular and thus unprotected fundamentally misunderstands longstanding precedent and the letter and spirit of the law. Because this case threatens faith practices far beyond the COVID context, and because it has sharply divided federal judges across the nation, we are optimistic the Supreme Court will accept the case for its October term.”

PJI Founder and President Brad Dacus said the case carries significant consequences for employees whose faith informs decisions concerning their employment.

“A Christian should not have to persuade a federal judge that her faith is religious enough to receive protection under federal law,” Dacus said. “Americans routinely apply their faith to decisions in their daily lives. When courts begin separating beliefs they consider religious from beliefs they consider secular, they assume authority over matters of conscience that our Constitution and civil rights laws do not give them. Pacific Justice Institute is asking the Supreme Court to correct that dangerous standard.”

PJI will continue representing Detwiler as she seeks Supreme Court review. The petition provides the Court with an opportunity to resolve the disagreement among the federal courts of appeals, clarify the limits of judicial inquiry into religious belief and determine how Title VII protects employees whose sincerely held religious convictions inform their response to workplace requirements.

Learn more about Pacific Justice Institute’s work defending religious freedom and constitutional rights nationwide.

If your employer has denied a religious accommodation or penalized you for sincerely held religious beliefs, contact Pacific Justice Institute by completing a GET HELP FORM.

To help PJI continue providing legal representation without charge to individuals whose religious freedom and constitutional rights are threatened, we invite you to SUPPORT PJI with a tax-deductible gift today.