The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 13 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA NILSEN; ANNA SANDI; No. 24-7460
AVERY SNYDER; CARRIE FORD; D.C. No.
CHRISTEN RHODES; DIANE JANSEN; 2:23-cv-01498-MJP
ERIN BOLAS; GLENA FELKER;
GLORIA TORRES; JESSICA LOPEZ;
JOVY LEGASPI; KATHLEEN MEMORANDUM*
POKORNY; KATHERINE GALANGA;
KRISTI HUGHES; LYNNETTE
MATHIAS; MAILE SIVAKANTHAN;
MELISSA EARL-PATOPEA; MICHELLE
SIZER; PETRA BIGEA; SHANNON
SLISH; SUSAN GROLLER; CRYSTAL
GIBSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a
governmental agency; JENNIFER
PETRITZ; KRISTI ARAVENA; KATHY
SCHELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Argued and Submitted May 20, 2026
Seattle, Washington
Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Former employees of the University of Washington (UW) challenge their
discharge and seek reinstatement and damages. In October 2021, they were fired for
failure to comply with UW’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. They sued UW and
two human resources officials (the Individual UW officials), claiming several
violations of federal and state law. The district court ruled against them. They
appealed. In a concurrently filed opinion, we address Appellants’ claims against UW
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Here we address their other claims, including their § 1983
claims against the Individual UW officials. We review the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo. Edwards v. Wells Fargo & Co., 606 F.3d 555, 557 (9th
Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
I
The Individual UW officials are entitled to qualified immunity warranting
dismissal of the § 1983 claims against them because Appellants have not shown that
they violated any clearly established rights. A right is clearly established only if
existing precedent “place[s] the constitutional question beyond debate.” Zorn v.
Linton, 146 S. Ct. 926, 930 (2026) (per curiam) (citation modified). Generally, this
requires identifying a case “where an officer acting under similar circumstances was
held to have violated the Constitution. . . . The relevant precedent must define the
2 24-7460
right with a high degree of specificity, so that every reasonable official would
interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” Id. (citation
modified). “Principles stated generally . . . do not suffice” to show that a right was
clearly established. Id.
For their procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal
protection claims, Appellants cite cases only for general principles. They fail to
identify any case that meets the standard required by Zorn to clearly establish a
cognizable right. Accordingly, the Individual UW officials are entitled to qualified
immunity on these claims.
Appellants come closer on their Free Exercise claim but still fail to meet
Zorn’s standard. They point to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roman Catholic
Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020) (per curiam), and Tandon v.
Newsom, 593 U.S. 61 (2021) (per curiam), to argue that they had a clearly
established right to be treated on par with comparable secular activity. This
argument fails. Diocese of Brooklyn and Tandon involved materially different
circumstances: occupancy restrictions on communal gatherings, not accommodating
unvaccinated employees in healthcare settings. See Diocese of Brooklyn, 592 U.S.
at 15–16; Tandon, 593 U.S. at 63–64. No clearly established law put the Individual
UW officials on notice that their actions violated Appellants’ constitutional rights.
3 24-7460
II
Because qualified immunity “does not provide immunity from a suit seeking
. . . injunctive relief,” we turn now to Appellants’ claims that they were entitled to
reinstatement. Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 939–40 (9th Cir. 2012). Appellants
contend that the district court erred by dismissing the § 1983 claims against the
Individual UW officials in their official capacities for reinstatement. But Appellants
did not sue the Individual UW officials in their official capacities. In their operative
complaint, Appellants sued the Individual UW officials only “in their personal
capacities” for all causes of action brought under § 1983. Accordingly, they have
no official-capacity claims against the Individual UW officials.
III
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to UW and the
Individual UW officials on Appellants’ claims under the Washington Law Against
Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 49.60. Appellants contend that a report by
Dr. Harvey Risch created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it would
be an undue hardship to retain them with accommodations.
We disagree. Much of the data on which Dr. Risch relied was published after
the accommodation decisions were made. There was no indication in the record that
UW or the Individual UW officials had this data available to them when the
accommodation decisions were made. And UW was able to rely on a special
4 24-7460
committee composed of medical experts from the School of Medicine, who offered
their expertise to inform UW administrators as to what risks to hospitalized and high-
risk patients and staff would be posed if UW failed to vaccinate medical employees
in healthcare facilities. Accordingly, Appellants have failed to demonstrate that there
was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether UW and the Individual UW
officials reasonably determined that accommodating them would impose an undue
hardship based on the information available to them at the time. See Williams v.
Legacy Health, 174 F.4th 1201, 1206 (9th Cir. 2026) (considering what evidence
was available to the employer to determine if the employer satisfied the undue
hardship standard).
IV
In their reply brief, Appellants argue that the district court erred by granting
summary judgment on some state law claims, rather than declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over those related claims once summary judgment was
granted on all federal claims. They did not raise this issue in the district court or
their opening brief. Accordingly, that claim has been waived and we decline to
address it. CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832, 850 (9th
Cir. 2019).
AFFIRMED.
5 24-7460