9th Circuit upholds dismissal of lawsuit by former Washington state workers fired for refusing COVID-19…
Seagraves v. Washington State Department of Children Youth and Families
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of lawsuit by former Washington state workers fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccine after religious accommodation requests were denied.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by 18 former employees of Washington's Department of Children, Youth, and Families who were fired after their religious accommodation requests from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate were denied. The court found that the employees' complaint did not plausibly allege that agency officials were personally involved in any constitutional violations of free exercise, equal protection, or due process rights. The court also found that claims for injunctive relief were barred because the vaccine mandate had already been rescinded before the lawsuit was even filed, and it upheld the trial court's decision not to allow the employees to amend their complaint.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects the 18 former DCYF employees who brought the lawsuit, ending their federal civil rights claims. More broadly, it affects current and former public employees in the Ninth Circuit who may seek to sue state agency officials over rescinded policies, as it clarifies the legal barriers they face.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 21, 2026
Published opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 21, 2026Published opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 21, 2026 · Published opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case arose from a COVID-19 vaccination requirement that Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued in August 2021, which barred unvaccinated state workers from working after October 18, 2021. The Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) was responsible for implementing the mandate within its workforce. Eighteen former DCYF employees whose requests for religious accommodations were denied, and who were subsequently separated from the agency, sued DCYF and three agency officials under federal civil rights law, claiming violations of their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, equal protection, and procedural due process, as well as various state law claims. The Ninth Circuit addressed three main issues. First, the court held that the employees' complaint did not plausibly allege that the three individual officials, Secretary Ross Hunter, Human Resources Director Marcos Rodriguez, and Assistant Secretary Vickie Ybarra, were personally involved in any constitutional violations. Personal involvement is required to hold individuals liable under the federal civil rights statute at issue, and the complaint fell short of that standard. Second, the court held that the employees' claims for prospective injunctive relief against the officials in their official capacities were blocked by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally shields state officials from certain federal lawsuits. For an exception to apply, there must be an ongoing violation of federal law. Because Governor Inslee's vaccine mandate had been rescinded months before the employees even filed their original complaint, there was no ongoing violation to remedy, and the exception did not apply. Third, the court found that the district court acted within its discretion when it refused to allow the employees to file an amended complaint, because any amendment would have been futile given the legal deficiencies in the case. The opinion does not reflect any dissent among the three judges. Going forward, this ruling reinforces that plaintiffs suing state officials individually must specifically allege how each official was personally involved in the alleged constitutional harm, and that injunctive relief against state officials is unavailable when the challenged policy is no longer in effect.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHANIE SEAGRAVES; No. 25-3282 BELINDA BRONS; BENJAMIN D.C. No. LUPO; CHARLENE RAMIREZ; 3:24-cv-05081- JAMES WILSON; KRISTIN TMC ROWLAND; LAURA COOK; MARY AHERN; MICHELLE WHITLOW; MELINDA OPINION ALEXANDER; PAULENE DOUGHTERY; SANDRA RUCH; SPENCER MOOERS; TAYLOR SCHRODT; THERESA BEYERSDORFER BOGUE; TONY LACEY; TRACIE DUMAS; YVETTE HESSLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES, a governmental agency; ROSS HUNTER; VICKIE YBARRA; MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, Defendants - Appellees. 2 SEAGRAVES V. WA DCYF Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Tiffany M. Cartwright, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 20, 2026 Seattle, Washington Filed July 21, 2026 Before: Richard C. Tallman, Richard R. Clifton, and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton SUMMARY * COVID-19 Vaccination Policy The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by former employees (the “Employees”) of the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families (“DCYF” or “the agency”), arising from the implementation of a COVID- 19 vaccination requirement mandated by then-Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee. The Employees allege that DCYF and three individuals who held positions within the agency (the “Officials”) violated their constitutional rights and various provisions of * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SEAGRAVES V. WA DCYF 3 Washington state law through the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement when their requests for religious accommodations from the vaccine requirement were denied and they were separated from the agency. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Employees’ claims against the Officials in their personal capacities because the first amended complaint did not plausibly allege personal involvement by any of the Officials in constitutional violations of the Employees’ free exercise, equal protection, or procedural due process rights. The panel further held that the Employees’ claims for prospective injunctive relief against the Officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the Employees identified no ongoing violation of federal law where Governor Inslee’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement was rescinded months before they filed their original complaint. Lastly, the panel held that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the Employees leave to amend, based on its reasonable conclusion that amendment would have been futile. 4 SEAGRAVES V. WA DCYF COUNSEL Nathan J. Arnold (argued), Arnold Jacobowitz & Alvarado PLLC, Seattle, Washington; Lesley-Anne Alvarado, Arnold Jacobowitz & Alvarado PLLC, Redmond, Washington; Dennis J. McGlothin, Western Washington Law Group PLLC, Bellevue, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Zachary J. Pekelis (argued), Kai A. Smith, and Erica Coray, Special Assistant Attorneys General, Pacifica Law Group LLP, Seattle, Washington; Nicholas W. Brown, Washington Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Seattle, Washington; for Defendants-Appellees. OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: This case arises from the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families’ (“DCYF” or “the agency”) implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination requirement mandated by then-Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee. Appellants are former DCYF employees (the “Employees”) who were separated from the agency after their requests for religious accommodations from the vaccine requirement were denied. Appellees are DCYF and three individuals who held positions within the agency at the time: Secretary Ross Hunter; Human Resources Director Marcos Rodriguez; and Assistant Secretary of Partnership, Prevention, and Services Vickie Ybarra (together, the “Officials”). The Employees claim DCYF and the Officials violated their constitutional rights and various provisions of Washington SEAGRAVES V. WA DCYF 5 state law through the implementation of the Governor’s vaccine mandate. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. We affirm. I. Background In response to escalating concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Inslee issued a Proclamation in August 2021 (the “Proclamation”) prohibiting “[a]ny Worker from engaging in work for a State Agency after October 18, 2021 if the Worker has not been fully vaccinated against COVID- 19.” This vaccine requirement was intended to slow the spread of COVID-19 and “preserve and maintain life [and] health.” The Proclamation directed state agencies to evaluate employee requests for medical and religious exemptions and provide reasonable accommodations, consistent with state and federal anti-discrimination statutes. It specified that employees with sincerely held beliefs or disabilities that prevented them from being vaccinated were to be provided a reasonable accommodation, if doing so would not impose an “undue hardship” on the employer. State agencies, including DCYF, were responsible for implementing the Proclamation’s requirements within their workforce. Internal communications between the Officials in the weeks immediately following the Proclamation reveal some of the questions that arose within DCYF during the agency’s rollout of the new policy. For instance, on August 16, 2021, Hunter was asked in a private text message about how DCYF would handle requests for religious exemptions. He responded that the policy was “[n]ot figured out yet” but that the agency would be “as strict as we are allowed to be.” A week later, Hunter sent an email to various DCYF staff, including Rodriguez and Ybarra, outlining a “multi- prong approach to vaccination.” The agency’s fundamental 6 SEAGRAVES V. WA DCYF message was that employees must “[g]et vaccinated or lose your job,” which Hunter wanted “[c]ommunicated to unvaccinated people in ways that [are] helpful for them to hear.” He wrote that “[i]t is unsafe for our staff to serve clients, particularly children and at-risk adults who have not been vaccinated if they are vastly more likely to spread the disease.” Hunter identified potential objections that employees might raise to the vaccination requirement, including “[s]afety,” “[p]olitical tribalism,” and “[r]eligious objections, real or imagined,” along with various resources that he believed might help address employees’ concerns about vaccination. The list included “[a] North Dakota video from religious authorities (pope, etc.).” He concluded with the comment that “[o]nce we get a strong message out about the inability to hide behind the exemption strategy we will want to start helping people over their other concerns.” About two months later, Hunter sent another email where he contemplated how future developments might impact the DCYF’s policy. He wrote that when a “[s]afe” vaccine became available, “some employees will be unable (medically) to take it. How will we approve this?” Ultimately, the process DCYF implemented was bifurcated into two distinct stages: exemption and accommodation. First, employees seeking exemption from the vaccine mandate had to attest that they h
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.