{"id":11049,"date":"2025-01-24T10:06:58","date_gmt":"2025-01-24T18:06:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/?p=11049"},"modified":"2025-01-27T09:12:57","modified_gmt":"2025-01-27T17:12:57","slug":"client-wsu-beats-rolovich-covid-19-vaccine-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/client-wsu-beats-rolovich-covid-19-vaccine-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Pacifica Client Washington State University Beats Ex-Football Coach\u2019s COVID-19 Vaccine Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A federal judge ruled in favor of Washington State University (WSU) in a lawsuit brought by Nick Rolovich, WSU\u2019s former head football coach. In 2021, Rolovich was fired after refusing to comply with then-Governor Jay Inslee\u2019s emergency proclamation requiring educational workers (including university employees) to be vaccinated against COVID-19. On January 6, 2025, Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment for WSU, ending Rolovich\u2019s lawsuit after more than two years of litigation. WSU was represented by a team led by Pacifica Partner <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/attorneys\/zach-pekelis\/\">Zach Pekelis<\/a> and including Partner <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/attorneys\/rebecca-j-garland\/\">Rebecca Garland<\/a>, Associates <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/attorneys\/ai-li-chiong-martinson\/\">Ai-Li Chiong-Martinson<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/attorneys\/erica-coray\/\">Erica Coray<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/attorneys\/w-scott-ferron\/\">Scott Ferron<\/a>, Paralegals <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/staff\/valentina-barei\/\">Valentina Barei<\/a> and Katie Rodenburg, Legal Assistant <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/staff\/erica-knerr\/\">Erica Knerr<\/a>, and attorneys and legal staff with the Washington Attorney General\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n<p>University administrators dismissed Rolovich for declining, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, to get vaccinated after the Governor\u2019s proclamation. Rolovich had applied for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate, but the university denied his claim for two reasons: First, the university questioned whether Rolovich had a genuine religious objection to COVID-19 vaccination because he had spent months vocally expressing his <em>secular <\/em>opposition to the vaccines based on pseudoscientific skepticism and conspiracy theories\u2014only invoking religion <em>after <\/em>the Governor\u2019s proclamation. Second, given the constant, close interactions inherent in the job of head football coach, the university determined that allowing Rolovich to continue doing his job unvaccinated would pose an \u201cundue hardship\u201d by increasing the risk of transmitting COVID-19 to students, staff, and others.<\/p>\n<p>After his separation, Rolovich sued WSU, Governor Inslee, and then-WSU Athletics Director Pat Chun in 2022, alleging breach of contract, violations of various constitutional provisions, and religious discrimination under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dol.gov\/agencies\/oasam\/centers-offices\/civil-rights-center\/statutes\/title-vii-civil-rights-act-of-1964\">Title VII<\/a> and the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.hum.wa.gov\/employment\">Washington Law Against Discrimination<\/a> (WLAD). In May 2023, the defense team won their first victory in the case when Judge Rice granted WSU\u2019s motion to dismiss Rolovich\u2019s constitutional claims. Judge Rice also dismissed all claims against Governor Inslee and AD Chun, removing them from the lawsuit.<\/p>\n<p>The defense earned a complete victory on Monday, January 6, when Judge Rice granted WSU\u2019s motion for summary judgment, while also denying Rolovich\u2019s partial motion for summary judgment. In siding with WSU, Judge Rice ruled as a matter of law that both its reasons for denying Rolovich\u2019s accommodation request were valid.<\/p>\n<p>First, the Court concluded that Rolovich had undermined his own claim for religious accommodation. \u201cPlaintiff frequently expressed secular concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine to friends, family members and coworkers,\u201d wrote Judge Rice in his ruling. \u201cIn the thousands of pages of discovery, Plaintiff does not invoke a religious objection to the vaccine. This alone is a basis for denying Plaintiff\u2019s claimed religious objection.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Second, Judge Rice agreed with the defense that accommodating Rolovich by allowing him to continue coaching without being vaccinated would have caused the university \u201cundue hardship.\u201d Judge Rice cited the \u201cunrebutted expert testimony that Plaintiff\u2019s unvaccinated status materially increased the risk of spreading COVID-19 to others\u2026. Defendant has shown that Plaintiff\u2019s job as head football coach undisputedly required frequent interactions with students, coworkers, donors, the media, and others (hundreds of people). This created an undue hardship for Defendant and no other possible accommodation would have negated that risk.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Phil Weiler, WSU\u2019s Vice President of Marketing and Communications, said in a statement: \u201cThe governor\u2019s COVID-19 vaccination mandate was a critical measure to stem the spread of the virus during the pandemic. As the Court recognized, the overwhelming, undisputed evidence proved that allowing an unvaccinated head football coach to continue in his position during the height of the pandemic would have endangered the health and safety of the university community. Thus, the university\u2019s decision to deny Mr. Rolovich\u2019s exemption request and terminate his employment was consistent with the governor\u2019s proclamation, our duty to protect the university community, and the law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Pacifica Partner Zach Pekelis also praised the decision. \u201cWe are pleased with the Court\u2019s ruling, which correctly held that Mr. Rolovich\u2019s claims failed as a matter of law for multiple reasons,\u201d Pekelis said. \u201cThe decision confirms the commonsense principle that many other courts have recognized in cases arising from employee vaccination requirements: an employee is not legally entitled to a religious exemption and accommodation where his unvaccinated status would increase the risk of transmitting the virus to others\u2014whether coworkers, students, or members of the public.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pacifica has emerged as a leader in defending state and local governments against legal challenges to emergency public health measures adopted to save lives during the COVID-19 pandemic\u2014including vaccination requirements. In over 50 such cases, no challenger has won any form of relief against Pacifica\u2019s clients.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/https-ecf-waed-uscourts-gov-doc1-19514817511.pdf\"><em>Click here to read Judge Rice\u2019s decision in full<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A federal judge ruled in favor of Washington State University (WSU) in a lawsuit brought by Nick Rolovich, WSU\u2019s former&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":11053,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,57,11,59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-attorneys","category-cases","category-featured-clients","category-news","category-stories"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/rolovich-v-wsu-news-featured-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11049\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11053"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pacificalawgroup.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}