Hanson v. Ferguson
3:24-cv-05989
W.D. Wash.May 19, 2025Background
- Ten former employees of the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (AGO) challenged the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate after being terminated for refusal to comply, citing sincerely held religious beliefs.
- Governor Inslee’s Proclamation 21-14 mandated all state employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 18, 2021, with exceptions for disability- or religion-based accommodations.
- Plaintiffs either sought or attempted to seek religious accommodations, but the AGO determined it could not provide accommodations without undue hardship, resulting in plaintiffs' termination.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal constitutional claims (First and Fourteenth Amendments), and several state law claims, including wrongful termination and violations of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the AGO is immune from suit under § 1983, and that individual defendants are protected by qualified immunity.
- The court addressed federal claims on their merits and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGO as § 1983 Defendant | AGO liable under federal law for violations | AGO not a person under § 1983; sovereign immunity | Federal claims vs. AGO dismissed without prejudice |
| Qualified Immunity (Individual Defendants) | Violated clear free exercise and due process rights | No violation of clearly established rights; immunity | Qualified immunity applies; claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Procedural Due Process | Denied process before termination due to vaccine rule | No added process required for generally applicable rule | Proclamation provided due process; claims dismissed |
| Supplemental Jurisdiction over State Claims | State claims viable under WLAD and public policy | Court should not retain state claims w/o fed. claims | Court declines jurisdiction; dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state agencies not 'persons' for § 1983 purposes; sovereign immunity applies)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects government officials from liability absent violation of clearly established rights)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established right must be particularized and existing precedent must put constitutional question beyond debate)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleadings must state plausible grounds for relief; more than labels and conclusions required)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to respond in public employment context)