This Week At The Ninth: Religious Beliefs And Loyalty Oaths

• Jurisdiction: California,United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment
• Author: Alexandra Avvocato
• Published date: 24 April 2023

This week, the Court addresses whether a state may refuse a religious accommodation to a government employee who is required to sign a loyalty oath as a condition of employment.

BRIANNA BOLDEN-HARDGE v. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER & MALIA M. COHEN

The Court holds that a plaintiff stated an employment-discrimination claim by alleging that she was denied the reasonable accommodation of modifying a state loyalty oath to conform with her religious beliefs.

The panel: Judges Schroeder, Graber, and Friedland, with Judge Friedland writing the opinion.

Key highlight: "[C]onstruing all facts and inferences in Bolden-Hardge's favor, it is possible to understand the [loyalty] oath as requiring state employees to place their allegiance to the federal and state constitutions over their allegiance to God for the purposes of their work. Indeed, California's apparent rationale for the oath requirement is to ensure that if an oath taker's religion ever comes into conflict with the federal or state constitutions, religion must yield. It is in fact this very rationale that the Controller's Office invokes in defending the oath requirement. . . . We therefore hold that Bolden-Hardge has adequately alleged that the 'faith and allegiance' component of the loyalty oath poses a conflict with her religious beliefs."

Background: The California Constitution requires all public employees, except those "as may be by law exempted," to swear to support the United States and California Constitutions and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to those constitutions. Plaintiff Brianna Bolden-Hardge is a devout Jehovah's Witness who believes her faith prevents her from swearing allegiance "to any human government" over "the Kingdom of God." In 2017, she was offered a position with the California Office of the State Controller, which asked her to take California's loyalty oath. Plaintiff requested an accommodation by which she would sign the oath "with an addendum specifying that her allegiance was first and foremost to God and that she would not take up arms." The Controller's Office rejected her proposal. Plaintiff refused to sign the oath without a modification and her job offer was accordingly rescinded. She subsequently worked at other state agencies that either did not require her to sign a loyalty oath or permitted her to sign an oath with an addendum.

Plaintiff sued the Controller's Office and the Controller in her official capacity, alleging their refusal to allow her...