California Case Summaries

Lewis-Williams v. BART — Ninth Circuit Upholds Religious-Accommodation Verdict for Employees

Reported / Citable

Case
Lewis-Williams v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge
Johnnie B. Rawlinson (Bill Clinton, 2000); Ryan D. Nelson (Donald Trump, 2018); Bridget S. Bade (Donald Trump, 2019)
Date Decided
2026-09-11
Docket No.
25-740
Status
Reported / Citable
Topics
Title VII, FEHA, religious accommodation, vaccine mandate, undue hardship, jury verdict

Background

Former Bay Area Rapid Transit employees sought religious exemptions from BART’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. They contended that alternatives such as masking, testing, reassignment, remote work, or leave could accommodate their beliefs; BART maintained that vaccination was necessary for employees performing essential duties.

A jury found for six former employees under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. BART sought judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and the district court rejected those requests.

The Court’s Holding

The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the panel concluded that a reasonable jury could find workable accommodations and reject BART’s undue-hardship defense. The appellate court could not reweigh competing testimony merely because another factfinder might have reached a different result.

The evidence was not so one-sided that vaccination was the only reasonable means for every plaintiff to perform essential job duties. Because the statutory verdict remained intact, the former employees’ conditional cross-appeal concerning a Free Exercise claim was moot.

Key Takeaways

  • Religious-accommodation disputes remain intensely fact specific, even when an employer adopts a safety policy for legitimate reasons.
  • Employers should evaluate duties, work locations, testing, protective equipment, reassignment, leave, and cost for each employee.
  • After a jury verdict, an appellant faces a demanding standard and cannot ask the appellate court to reweigh evidence.
  • California employers must account for both Title VII and FEHA when documenting accommodation decisions.

Why It Matters

The ruling is important for public and private California employers reviewing religious accommodations tied to health and safety rules. It emphasizes contemporaneous, individualized analysis: categorical assertions that no alternative is reasonable may fare poorly when trial evidence shows operational flexibility or inconsistent treatment.

Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket

Scroll to Top