Pacifica Law Group recently helped three Washington State agencies win lawsuits challenging the agencies’ implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for state employees. Federal judges ruled in favor of Pacifica’s clients, dismissing complaints by former employees of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO), the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), and the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). The employees had sued the agencies—and individual agency leaders—challenging the terminations of their employment after their requests for accommodations from the vaccine mandate were denied and they declined to be vaccinated by the deadline.
Collectively, the three lawsuits involved 15 former state employees, a majority of whom requested religious exemptions and accommodations from then-Governor Jay Inslee’s emergency proclamation requiring healthcare workers, most state employees, and educational workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The complaints alleged that the denials of the plaintiffs’ requests for exemptions and accommodations violated various federal and state constitutional provisions, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
In dismissing the lawsuit against the AGO and several of its leaders—including former Attorney General (and now Governor) Bob Ferguson—Chief District Judge David G. Estudillo agreed with the defendants that the AGO could not be sued for constitutional violations under Section 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights) of Title 42 of the United States Code (42 U.S.C. § 1983), because the law only allows for civil actions against individual state government officials and employees. Chief Judge Estudillo also held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects state and local officials from liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional rights. The case is Hanson v. Ferguson, No. 3:24-cv-05989-DGE (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2025).
In the lawsuit against the DFI, four former agency employees alleged religious discrimination under Title VII and WLAD. In granting DFI’s motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly held that the employees failed to assert bona fide religious beliefs as the basis for their objections to the COVID-19 vaccines. Instead, the employees refused vaccination due to their concerns about the vaccines’ safety or efficacy, their belief in their own “natural immunity,” and other secular objections. The case is Fisher v. Department of Financial Institutions, No. C22-5991 TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 2, 2023).
In the lawsuit against DSHS, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pennell held that the plaintiff had filed her lawsuit after the statute of limitations had passed. The case is Dohrman v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services, No. 2:24-CV-00359-RLP (E.D. Wash. May 21, 2025).
The Pacifica litigation teams representing the State agencies included: Zach Pekelis, Erica Coray, and Luther Reed-Caulkins for the AGO; Ian Rogers and Shweta Jayawardhan for the DFI; and Anita Khandelwal and Christopher Sanders for DSHS.
These three latest wins continue Pacifica’s track record of success in defending state and local governments against legal challenges to emergency public health measures adopted to save lives during the COVID-19 pandemic—including vaccination requirements. In over 50 such cases, no challenger has won any form of relief against Pacifica’s clients. Earlier this year, in one of the highest-profile cases, Pacifica helped Washington State University beat a COVID-19 vaccine lawsuit brought by its former head football coach, Nick Rolovich.
Please follow the below links to read the decisions:
Fisher v. Department of Financial Institutions
Dohrman v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services
