Bird: Remote-Work Hardship Required Evidence Beyond Pressure on Coworkers

Nonprecedential memorandum: This October 8, 2026 disposition is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. It addresses Title VII and Oregon law.

In Lacey Bird v. Alanson M. Randol DDS, PC, No. 25-1714 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed federal and Oregon state religious accommodation claims brought by three former employees of a dental practice. The panel affirmed the dismissal of one plaintiff's complaint and summary judgment against a second plaintiff for failing to establish a religious conflict. Regarding the third plaintiff, the court affirmed that working on site while unvaccinated presented an undue hardship, but reversed summary judgment as to her remote-work accommodation claim because the employer failed to demonstrate that task reassignment imposed a substantial business burden.

Case Overview and Procedural History

Plaintiffs Makenzie Shaw-David, Alishia Egenhoff, and Lacey Bird worked for Dr. Alanson M. Randol and his professional dental corporation in Oregon. Following the adoption of workplace COVID-19 vaccination requirements, all three plaintiffs sought religious exemptions. They pursued religious accommodation claims against their former employer in the District of Oregon. The memorandum does not recount the complete underlying chronology.

Statutory authority: The plaintiffs asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and Oregon's parallel state statute prohibiting employment discrimination and aiding and abetting, Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.030(1)(a), (h).

District Court disposition: Chief District Judge Michael J. McShane granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Shaw-David's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court later granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants against Egenhoff and Bird. All three plaintiffs appealed.

Ninth Circuit Rulings by Plaintiff

1. Makenzie Shaw-David: Failure to Plead Religious Conflict Nexus

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Shaw-David's claims. To establish a prima facie case under Title VII and Oregon law, an employee must show a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment duty.

In her exemption request, Shaw-David stated that "God is going to shield me from this virus," that the mandate created unnecessary fear, and that "God said, 'fear not.'" Her complaint alleged a belief that prayer would keep her body free from sickness. Citing Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, the court held that invocations of broad religious tenets do not convert secular preferences into religious convictions. Shaw-David failed to allege a sufficient nexus between her faith and the vaccine requirement. Bird, slip op. at 3.

2. Alishia Egenhoff: Secular Safety Judgments Do Not Trigger Protection

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Egenhoff. At her deposition, Egenhoff testified that she refused the vaccine because she believed it was unsafe and ineffective, and because she opposed employer-mandated vaccinations. Bird, slip op. at 4.

Holding: Under Detwiler, personal judgments based on science or secular opposition to government mandates are legally attenuated from religious belief. Egenhoff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a bona fide religious conflict. Bird, slip op. at 4.

3. Lacey Bird: Distinguishing On-Site Risk from Remote-Work Feasibility

The panel’s analysis of Bird’s claim addressed the employer’s undue-hardship defense, under which the burden shifted to Defendants to prove either good-faith accommodation efforts or that accommodation would cause undue hardship. Bird, slip op. at 4.

On-Site Accommodation

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment holding that allowing Bird to work unvaccinated inside the dental clinic imposed an undue hardship due to health and safety risks. Bird, slip op. at 5.

Remote-Work Accommodation

The panel reversed summary judgment regarding Bird's request to work remotely. Bird testified that she could perform many, though not all, of her front-desk duties remotely. Dr. Randol testified that allowing remote work would create "undue pressure" on a front-desk team totaling seven to nine staff members, through reassignment of in-person duties. Bird, slip op. at 5.

Reasoning: Under Groff v. DeJoy, an employer must demonstrate that an accommodation imposes a substantial burden in the overall context of its business. Impact on coworkers is relevant only if it affects business operations. Under Williams v. Legacy Health, the employer must "spell out" why remaining staff cannot absorb residual duties. Because Dr. Randol provided no concrete evidence showing why colleagues could not absorb Bird's in-person duties or how task transfers burdened business operations, summary judgment was improper. Bird, slip op. at 5–6.

Key Takeaways and Narrow Limits

The remand did not order the employer to grant remote work or decide ultimate liability. It held that the summary judgment record did not establish undue hardship for that proposed arrangement.

• Statutory scope: This decision addresses federal Title VII and Oregon state law (Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.030), not California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
• Nexus requirement: Pleading general scriptural phrases or personal doubts about medical efficacy does not establish a religious conflict.
• Evidentiary burden under Groff: Employers cannot rely on broad assertions of team pressure. To establish undue hardship for remote work, employers must present specific operational facts detailing why task reassignment imposes a substantial cost or disruption.

The Ninth Circuit remanded Bird's remote-work claim to the district court for further evidentiary proceedings. Bird, slip op. at 6.

For the narrower task of evaluating coworker coverage and the business impact of a remote proposal, see our remote-work religious-accommodation guide. Our employment practice can review the proposal and supporting record.