O'Hailpin v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ERWIN YOUNG; PUANANI BADIANG;
SABRINA FRANKS; RONALD LUM,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. NO. 22-00532 HG-WRP
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN
HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 406)
Plaintiffs Ronald Lum, Sabrina Franks, Erwin Young, and
Puanani Badiang were employees of Defendant Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc., when it implemented a mandatory vaccination policy in the
midst of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.
Each Plaintiff requested an exemption from Defendants’
vaccination policy claiming a conflict with his or her religious
beliefs. Plaintiff Lum also requested an exemption based on a
claimed medical reason.
Plaintiffs’ requests for exemption from the vaccination
policy were denied in December 2021.
On November 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit against
Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and its holding company,
Defendant Hawaiian Holdings, Inc., (“Hawaiian Defendants”).
1
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

The Hawaiian Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on the two claims remaining in the Complaint:
COUNT I: Religious Discrimination - Failure to Accommodate,
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (as to all four
Plaintiffs); and
COUNT IV: Disability Discrimination - Failure to
Accommodate, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq. (as to Plaintiff Lum).
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are unable to prevail on
their religious failure-to-accommodate claims because granting
the Plaintiff employees’ requests to be exempt from the
vaccination policy would have placed an undue hardship on the
company and endangered other employees and the public.
Defendants also assert that Plaintiff Lum is unable to
prevail on his disability failure-to-accommodate claim for the
same reasons.
The Court construes the record in a light most favorable to
Plaintiffs. The Court finds there are no genuine issues of
material fact.
Plaintiffs argue, as a matter of law, that providing them
with their requested accommodations would not have resulted in
any health or safety costs, operational burdens, or financial
hardship to the Hawaiian Defendants. Plaintiffs also rely on
“hindsight reasoning” and on material that was published and
events that occurred subsequent to the date of the Hawaiian
2
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Defendants’ employment decisions. Plaintiffs’ arguments are
contrary to binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, 150
F.4th 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2025), Williams v. Legacy Health,
___ F.4th ___, 2026 WL 1239760, *3-*4 (9th Cir. May 6, 2026), and
Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020,
1024 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), cert. denied, __ S.Ct.__, 2026 WL
1377038, at *1 (U.S. May 18, 2026) (No. 25-765).
The Court finds that granting Plaintiffs’ accommodation
requests would have placed an undue hardship on Defendants. The
Hawaiian Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their
favor.
Defendants Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and Hawaiian Holdings,
Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 406) is GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Riki O’Hailpin, Nina
Arizumi, Robert Espinosa, Erwin Young, Puanani Badiang, Sabrina
Franks, Ronald Lum, Dan Saiki, and Brandee Aukai filed the
Complaint against Defendants Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and Hawaiian
Holdings, Inc. (ECF No. 1).
On January 18, 2024, the case was reassigned from Judge
Otake to Judge Gillmor. (ECF No. 103).
On May 6, 2025, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING
3
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION AS TO COUNTS I AND IV FOR PLAINTIFF NINA ARIZUMI.
(ECF No. 254).
On September 24, 2025, the Parties submitted a proposed
stipulation to dismiss Counts II, III, and V as to all
Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 379).
On December 10, 2025, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
AGAINST PLAINTIFFS SAIKI AND ESPINOSA. (ECF No. 402).
On January 20, 2026, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
AGAINST PLAINTIFFS O’HAILPIN AND AUKAI. (ECF No. 403).
On January 20, 2026, the Court issued a Minute Order
dismissing Counts II, III, and V pursuant to the Parties’ Joint
Stipulation (ECF No. 379). (ECF No. 404). The Minute Order
explained that following the Court’s December 10, 2025 and
January 20, 2026 Orders, there were no remaining causes of action
for Plaintiffs O’Hailpin, Arizumi, Espinosa, Saiki, and Aukai.
(Id.) The only remaining Plaintiffs were Young, Badiang, Franks,
and Lum. (Id.) The Court granted Defendants’ request to reopen
the summary judgment motion deadline based on the new caselaw
4
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id.)
On February 10, 2026, Defendants filed the current Motion
before the Court: DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN
HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ERWIN YOUNG,
PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA FRANKS, AND RONALD LUM. (ECF No. 406).
Defendants also filed a Concise Statement of Facts in Support of
the Motion before the Court. (ECF No. 405).
On February 25, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition.
(ECF Nos. 407 and 408).
On February 27, 2026, the Court issued a Minute Order
striking Plaintiffs’ Opposition because it failed to comply with
the Local Rules for the District of Hawaii. (ECF No. 410). The
Court granted Plaintiffs an extension of time to file a new
Opposition and Concise Statement of Facts in conformity with the
applicable rules. (ECF No. 409).
On March 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition and
Concise Statement of Facts in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 411 and 412).
On March 9, 2026, Defendants filed an Errata to their Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 413).
On March 12, 2026, Defendants filed their Reply and their
Concise Statement of Facts in Support of their Reply. (ECF No.
416).
On April 8 and April 13, 2026, Defendants filed Notices of
5
---
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 5 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Supplemental Authorities. (ECF Nos. 418, 420).
The Court elects to decide Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment without a hearing pursuant to District of Hawaii Local
Rule 7.1(c).
BACKGROUND
The Following Facts Are Not In Dispute:
COVID-19 WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-
2), which causes a disease known as “COVID-19,” emerged in late
2019 and spread worldwide, causing a major global pandemic.1
By early 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World
Health Organization (“WHO”), with countries implementing various
public health measures to curb the spread.2
On March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of Hawaii issued
an Emergency Proclamation, which required masks to be worn in
public.3
On January 21, 2021, U.S. President Biden issued Executive
Order 13998, which required masks to be worn in airports and
Amended Expert Report of Dr. Frederick Chen at p. 2,	1
attached as Ex. FC-1 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-27
Id. at p. 3	2
Governor’s Eighteenth Proclamation Related to the COVID-19	3
Emergency, dated February 12, 2021, attached as Ex. JR-14 to
Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-15
6
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 6 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

aboard commercial aircraft to prevent the spread of COVID-19.4
On February 1, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (“CDC”) issued an agency order requiring masks to
be worn on public transportation.5
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”)
issued orders through 2021 and 2022, extending Executive Order
13998, which required everyone to wear masks in airports and
aboard commercial aircraft.6
On February 12, 2021, the Governor of the State of Hawaii
issued an Emergency Proclamation that required all travelers to
the State to submit to a mandatory screening process. All	7
persons traveling to the State were subject to a mandatory self-
U.S. President’s Executive Order 13998, attached as Ex.	4
JR-7 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-8
CDC Order titled, “Requirement for Persons to Wear Masks	5
While on Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs,” 86 Fed. Reg.
8025-30, dated Feb. 1, 2021, attached as Ex. JR-17 to Def.’s CSF,
ECF No. 405-18
TSA Press Release dated January 31, 2021, attached as Ex.	6
JR-8 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-9; TSA Press Release dated April
30, 2021, attached as Ex. JR-9 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-10; TSA
Press Release dated August 20, 2021, attached as Ex. JR-10 to
Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-11; TSA Statement dated March 10, 2022,
attached as Ex. JR-11, ECF No. 405-12; TSA Statement dated April
13, 2022, attached as Ex. JR-12, ECF No. 405-13; TSA Statement
dated April 18, 2022, attached as Ex. JR-13, ECF No. 405-14
Governor’s Eighteenth Proclamation Related to the COVID-19	7
Emergency, dated February 12, 2021, at p. 6, attached as Ex. JR-
14 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-15
7
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 7 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

quarantine with limited exceptions. The mandatory self-	8
quarantine began from the day of entry into the State of Hawaii
and lasted 10 days or the duration of the person’s presence in
the State, whichever was shorter. Mandatory quarantine was also	9
required for persons traveling between counties within the State
of Hawaii.10
By February 12, 2021, there were 26,700 documented cases of
COVID-19 in Hawaii, and 425 deaths attributed to the disease.11
DEFENDANT HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.’S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19
WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC AND ITS VACCINATION POLICY
The COVID-19 Pandemic Severely Burdened The Airline Industry
And Caused Defendants To Take On Over $1 Billion Dollars In
Debt
Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. was an international
airline based in Honolulu, Hawaii. All of the Defendant’s	12
routes were to or from locations in Hawaii.13
In 2019, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. transported
Id. at p. 7	8
Id.	9
Id. at p. 12	10
Id. at p. 2	11
Declaration of Jonathan Snook, Chief Operations Officer	12
of Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., (“Snook Decl.”) at ¶¶ 3, 5,
attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-43
Id.	13
8
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 8 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

approximately 11,737,000 passengers.14
In 2020, as COVID-19 hit, the Defendant airline’s number of
passengers dropped to 3,353,000. The vast majority of those 3	15
million passengers flew in January, February, and early March of
2020, prior to the lockdown and government-ordered
restrictions.16
In 2021, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. transported
approximately 6,515,000 passengers.17
The Hawaiian Defendants suffered financial losses of
approximately $896 million dollars and took on over one billion
dollars ($1,000,000,000) in debt between 2020 and 2022 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.18
Deposition of Jonathan Snook (“Snook Depo.”) at p. 111,	14
attached to Def.’s CSF as Ex. JR-2, ECF No. 405-3
Id.	15
Id.	16
Id. at p. 112	17
Snook Depo. at pp. 110-12, ECF No. 405-3; Snook Decl. at	18
¶ 8, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-43; Hawaiian Holdings,
Inc.’s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, dated Feb. 15, 2023, attached as Ex. JS-3 to Def.’s
CSF, ECF No. 405-46; Hawaiian Holdings, Inc.’s Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated Feb. 10,
2022, attached as Ex. JS-2 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-45;
Hawaiian Holdings, Inc.’s Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated Feb. 12, 2021, attached
as Ex. JS-1 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-44; Hawaiian Holdings,
Inc.’s Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, dated Feb. 8, 2021, attached as Ex. JS-4 to Def.’s
CSF, ECF No. 405-47; Hawaiian Holdings Reports 2020 Fourth
Quarter and Full Year Financial Results, dated January 26, 2021,
9
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 9 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

In August 2021, Defendants Announced Their Vaccination
Policy In Response To The COVID-19 Pandemic And Their
Significant Financial Losses
Passengers increased from 2020 to 2021, but employee
sickness forced Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. to cancel
flights and lose revenue. It was reported that between 2020	19
and 2021 three of Defendants’ employees had died from COVID-19,
including one employee who was alleged to have contracted the
disease after attending a company training.20
In 2021, Chief Operations Officer Jonathan Snook was
concerned with the inability to predict the levels of COVID
outbreaks among staff and their resulting operational
disruption. COO Snook explained that the Hawaiian Defendants	21
attached as Ex. JR-3 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-4; Hawaiian
Holdings Reports 2021 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Financial
Results, dated January 25, 2022, attached as Ex. JR-4 to Def.’s
CSF, ECF No. 405-5
Snook Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 8, ECF No. 405-43	19
Declaration of Senior Vice President of Human Resources	20
Robin Kobayashi (“Kobayashi Decl.”) at ¶¶ 8-11, attached to
Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-39; Corporate Communication dated July
22, 2020 from Chief Executive Officer Peter Ingram to all
Hawaiian employees regarding the death of flight attendant Jeff
Kurtzman, attached as Ex. RK-1 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-40; E-
mail dated August 2, 2021 from Director of Human Resources Lynn
San Nicolas to VP of Human Resources Kobayashi and VP of Labor
Relations Justin Doane regarding the death of employee Sean
Strickland, attached as Ex. RK-2 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-41;
E-mail dated September 1, 2021 from Brent Overbeek to Senior
Officers regarding the death of employee Sesilia Mauia, attached
as Ex. RK-3 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-42
Snook Decl. at ¶¶ 4-6, ECF No. 405-43	21
10
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 10 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

“viewed [their] situation as unique because [they were] on an
archipelago in the middle of the Pacific with limited healthcare
capacity, limited emergency room capacity, and an inability to
deal with large peaks in hospitalizations in the same way that
carriers on the mainland can deal with that by putting people in
ambulances and moving to an adjacent state.”22
Senior Vice President of Human Resources Robin Kobayashi
stated that in 2021, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. reviewed
its policies and procedures in an attempt to minimize continuing
financial loss during the pandemic.23
On August 9, 2021, following guidance from the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc. announced a vaccination policy. The vaccination policy	24
required all of Defendant’s U.S.-based employees to be vaccinated
against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021. The Hawaiian Defendants	25
created a process to allow employees to seek accommodations from
the policy by submitting a request to the Human Resources
Department by October 1, 2021.26
Following the announcement of the Hawaiian Defendants’
Snook Depo. at pp. 78-79, ECF No. 405-3	22
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 3, ECF No. 405-39	23
Id. at ¶ 4	24
Id.	25
Id. at ¶¶ 4-6	26
11
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 11 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

vaccination policy in August 2021, COVID-19 cases rose
significantly in Hawaii, with the Hawaii Department of Health
reporting a “tidal wave” of 10,817 infections between August 15,
2021 and August 29, 2021.27
The effects of the Delta variant surge in August 2021
“convinced Hawaiian management that instituting the Vaccine
Policy was necessary to maintaining the safety of Hawaiian’s
employees.”28
Defendants Implemented A Transitional Testing Program From
November 1, 2021 to January 4, 2022 To Provide Employees
Additional Time To Comply With The Vaccination Mandate
From November 1, 2021 to January 4, 2022, the Hawaiian
Defendants provided and administered a Transitional Period
Testing Program. The temporary testing program allowed	29
employees to test for COVID-19 in lieu of vaccination for a short
period to allow employees to become compliant with the
vaccination requirement.30
Hawaii Department of Health Press Release titled, “HAWAII	27
SURPASSES 10,000 ACTIVE COVID-19 CASES,” dated August 29, 2021,
attached as Ex. JR-5 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-6
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 12, ECF No. 405-39	28
Snook Decl. at ¶ 15, ECF No. 405-43; Transition Period	29
Testing Program Packet, attached as Ex. VW-1 to Def.’s CSF, ECF
No. 405-49
Snook Decl. at ¶ 15, ECF No. 405-43; Kobayashi Decl. at ¶	30
21, ECF No. 405-39
12
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 12 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

The Hawaiian Defendants paid for proctored testing for the
employees who enrolled in the Transitional Period Testing
Program. The Hawaiian Defendants paid for the testing in order	31
to maintain accurate, valid, and timely test results. The	32
Hawaiian Defendants struggled to obtain a vendor who could supply
a sufficient number of tests given the surge in COVID-19
infections in the State of Hawaii.33
The Hawaiian Defendants paid approximately $320,000 for two
months of testing during the Transitional Period Testing Program
in November and December 2021. The Hawaiian Defendants	34
additionally paid two full-time employees and hired two temporary
employees to monitor compliance with the testing program, to
distribute test kits, and to provide logistical support to the
employees enrolled in the Transitional Period Testing Program.35
Roughly 15% of the 1,300 tests administered in the first
three weeks of November 2021 in the Transitional Testing Program
produced untimely or no test results. Untimely or incomplete	36
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶¶ 22-23, ECF No. 405-39	31
Id.	32
Id. at ¶ 24	33
Id.	34
Id.; Declaration of Senior Fleet Manager Valerie Wong at	35
¶¶ 4-6, (“Wong Decl.”) attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-48
Wong Decl. at ¶ 8, ECF No. 405-48	36
13
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 13 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

results required those employees to be held out of service.37
Substitute employees had to be paid overtime to cover for the
employees with non-compliant tests.38
The Hawaiian Defendants issued over 150 letters of non-
compliance to employees during the two months of the Transitional
Testing Program. Non-compliance resulted in additional	39
operational expenses to management and human resources
departments.40
The two-month Transitional Testing Period ended on January
4, 2022. The Hawaiian Defendants determined that the testing	41
process was too burdensome to administer and presented
significant operational challenges.42
The Hawaiian Defendants Received And Evaluated Hundreds Of
Accommodation Requests In Response To The Vaccination
Mandate
After the announcement of the vaccination policy on August
1, 2021, employees were permitted to seek accommodation from the
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 25, ECF No. 405-39	37
Snook Decl. at ¶ 15, ECF No. 405-43	38
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 25, ECF No. 405-39	39
Id.; Wong Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 9, ECF No. 405-48	40
Wong Decl. at ¶ 4, ECF No. 405-48	41
Snook Decl. at ¶ 15, ECF No. 405-43; Kobayashi Decl. at ¶	42
23, ECF No. 405-39
14
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 14 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Hawaiian Defendants’ vaccination policy by submitting an
accommodations request by October 1, 2021.43
Typically, the Hawaiian Defendants would receive between 5-
10 religious accommodation requests per year.44
In the two months between August 1, 2021 and October 1,
2021, the Hawaiian Defendants received 497 requests for religious
accommodations and 72 requests for medical accommodations from
the vaccination policy.45
The Hawaiian Defendants stated that they “examined every
single work position and every work location at Hawaiian for
which there was an accommodation request for their suitability
for reasonable accommodations involving masking and social
distancing.”46
Defendants Hired Dr. Frederick Ming Chen To Consult
Regarding Their Vaccination Policy And Accommodation
Requests
The Hawaiian Defendants hired Dr. Frederick Ming Chen, M.D.,
M.P.H., to provide expert medical advice and consultation
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶¶ 4-6, ECF No. 405-39	43
See Def.’s CSF at ¶ 20, ECF No. 405; Pl.’s CSF in	44
Response at ¶ 20, ECF No. 412
Senior Director of Leave Management Willard Jackson	45
(“Jackson Decl.”) at ¶ 3, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-50;
Chart of Vaccination Accommodations Requests attached as Ex. WJ-1
to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-51
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 10, ECF No. 405-50	46
15
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 15 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

regarding the vaccine policy and the more than 550 accommodations
requests. Dr. Chen was a professor at the University of	47
Washington Medical School and was Chief of Family Medicine at
Harborview Medical Center. From July 2022 to January 2026, Dr.	48
Chen was the Chief Health Science Officer for the American
Medical Association.49
Dr. Chen provided guidance to the Defendants’ Management and
Human Resources personnel. Dr. Chen stated that he relied upon	50
the prevailing medical opinions at the time, including guidance
from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.51
Dr. Chen stated that, according to the medical consensus and
public health data at the time, vaccination was the single best
tool for stopping the spread of COVID-19 and its variants. Dr.	52
Chen advised Defendants that alternatives to vaccination, such as
regular COVID-19 testing, masking, and social distancing, were
not sufficient substitutes for vaccination.53
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 13, ECF No. 405-39	47
Declaration of Dr. Frederick Ming Chen (“Chen Decl.”) at	48
¶¶ 2-3, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-26
Id. at ¶ 1	49
Id. at ¶¶ 9-10	50
Id.	51
Chen Decl. at ¶ 15, ECF No. 405-26; Chen Report at p. 3,	52
attached as Ex. FC-1 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-27
Chen Decl. at ¶¶ 12-13, ECF No. 405-26; Jackson Decl. at	53
¶ 12, ECF No. 405-50
16
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 16 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

The Hawaiian Defendants Were Required To Comply With Federal
And Local Laws As A Federal Transportation Contractor
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were a variety
of federal and state government orders enacted with respect to
COVID-19. Chief Operations Officer Jonathan Snook stated that	54
the Hawaiian Defendants monitored the various federal and local
government orders in order to ensure compliance with the law and
to protect employees’ safety.55
On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order
14042, known as the Federal Contractor Mandate. The order	56
required federal contractors, including the Hawaiian Defendants,
to ensure that their employees were vaccinated against COVID-19
except in limited circumstances.57
Senior Director of Leave Management Willard Jackson stated
that compliance with the Federal Contractor Mandate was set to
begin on January 4, 2022, which coincided with the deadline for
employees to comply with the Hawaiian Defendants’ vaccination
Snook Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No.	54
405-43
Jackson Decl. at ¶¶ 5-9, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No.	55
405-50
Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7; Guidance for Federal Contractors and	56
Subcontractors, dated November 10, 2021, attached as Ex. WJ-2 to
Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-52
Id.	57
17
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 17 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

policy. The Hawaiian Defendants were aware that there was	58
federal court litigation challenging the Federal Contractor
Mandate but the airline “determined that in order to best protect
its employees, it would continue to comply with the Federal
Contractor Mandate’s guidelines.”59
On October 1, 2021, the Governor of the State of Hawaii
issued an Emergency Proclamation Related to the State’s COVID-19
Delta Response. By October 2021, “the recorded number of cases	60
and deaths ha[d] continued to increase at an alarming rate, with
more than 79,000 documented cases of COVID-19 in the State and
more than 780 deaths attributed to this disease.” The Governor	61
explained that the Delta strain variant of COVID-19 was causing a
high number of cases in both the State of Hawaii and throughout
the United States of America.62
In response to the increased risk of infection and in order
to “avert unmanageable strains on our healthcare system and other
catastrophic impacts to the State,” the Hawaii State Governor
implemented an Emergency Proclamation to require vaccination and
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 5, ECF No. 405-50	58
Id. at ¶ 9	59
Governor’s Emergency Proclamation Related to the State’s	60
COVID-19 Delta Response, attached as Ex. JR-15 to Def.’s CSF, ECF
No. 405-16)
Id. at p. 1	61
Id.	62
18
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 18 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

testing for State and County employees. The Governor also	63
implemented requirements for employees of State Contractors to
report vaccination status, to wear masks at State locations, and
to provide documentation as to employees’ testing results.64
By January 26, 2022, the Governor of the State of Hawaii
reported “more than 208,000 documented cases of COVID-19 and
1,149 deaths attributed to this disease in the State.”65
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE VACCINATION POLICY
Plaintiff Ronald Lum - Pilot
Plaintiff Ronald Lum was employed as a pilot for Defendant
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. He flew on interisland routes from	66
2014 to January 2022.67
On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff Lum submitted a letter to
Defendants from Philip Suh, M.D., requesting a medical exemption
Id. at pp. 6-7	63
Id. at pp. 25-26	64
Governor’s Emergency Proclamation Related to COVID-19	65
(Omicron Variant), attached as Ex. JR-16 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No.
405-17
Deposition of Ronald Lum (“Lum Depo.”) at p. 29, attached	66
as Ex. JR-20 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-21
Id.	67
19
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 19 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

from the vaccination policy. The entirety of the letter states	68
as follows:
To whom it may concern:
Because of patient’s medical condition, I would
recommend that he not get the covid vaccine at this
time.
Electronically signed by Philip Suh, M.D. on 09/23/2021
5:27 p.m. in ElationHealth.69
On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff Lum submitted a Religious
Accommodation Request Form. Plaintiff Lum requested COVID-19	70
screening and testing as an accommodation.71
On November 20, 2021, Plaintiff Lum submitted a Medical
Accommodation Request Form. On the form, Plaintiff Lum stated	72
that his request was based on his “medical condition.”73
Plaintiff Lum requested temperature checks, wellness questions,
COVID-19 testing, and masking as accommodations.74
On December 4, 2021, Plaintiff Lum sent an e-mail in support
Letter dated Sept. 23, 2021, attached to Ex. JR-20 at p.	68
16, ECF No. 405-21
Id.	69
Religious Accommodation Request dated Oct. 25, 2021,	70
attached to Ex. JR-20 at pp. 17-18, ECF No. 405-21
Id. at p. 18	71
Reasonable Accommodation Request dated Nov. 20, 2021,	72
attached to Ex. JR-20 at p. 20, ECF No. 405-21
Id.	73
Id.	74
20
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 20 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

of his requests. The e-mail contained no further information	75
regarding his medical condition.
On December 7, 2021, the Hawaiian Defendants denied
Plaintiff Lum’s medical accommodation request.76
On December 17, 2021, the Hawaiian Defendants denied
Plaintiff Lum’s religious accommodation request.77
Plaintiff Lum accepted Defendants’ offer of 12-months of
unpaid leave as an accommodation beginning on January 5, 2022.78
Plaintiff Sabrina Franks - Customer Service Agent
Plaintiff Sabrina Franks was employed by Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc. as a customer service agent. She testified that	79
in her role she directly interacted with passengers and assisted
with check-in, ticketing, baggage, boarding, and seating of
E-mail dated Dec. 4, 2021, attached to Ex. JR-20 at p.	75
21, ECF No. 405-21
Letter to Ronald Lum from Hawaiian Airlines titled,	76
“Request for Medical Accommodation - DENIAL,” dated Dec. 7, 2021,
attached to Ex. JR-20 at p. 23, ECF No. 405-21
Letter to Ronald Lum from Hawaiian Airlines titled,	77
“Request for Religious Accommodation - DENIAL,” dated Dec. 17,
2021, attached to Ex. JR-20 at p. 25, ECF No. 405-21
TPTP Leave Acknowledgment dated Dec. 3, 2021, attached to	78
Ex. JR-20 at p. 22, ECF No. 405-21
Deposition of Sabrina Franks (“Franks Depo.”) at p. 25,	79
attached as Ex. JR-21 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-22
21
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 21 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

passengers.80
On September 30, 2021, Plaintiff Franks submitted a
Religious Accommodation Request Form. Plaintiff requested	81
masking, temperature and wellness checks, social distancing, and
twice a month testing at Defendants’ expense as accommodations.82
On December 13, 2021, the Hawaiian Defendants denied
Plaintiff Franks’s religious accommodation request.83
Plaintiff Franks was receiving workers’ compensation and was
not currently in service at her job at the time of her
accommodation request.84
Plaintiff Erwin Young - Lead Aircraft Mechanic
Plaintiff Erwin Young was employed by Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc. as a lead aircraft mechanic for the sheet metal
composite shop. Plaintiff Young was required to attend daily	85
Id.	80
Religious Accommodation Request dated Sept. 30, 2021,	81
attached to Ex. JR-21 at pp. 10-11, ECF No. 405-22
Id. at p. 11	82
Letter to Sabrina Franks from Hawaiian Airlines titled,	83
“Request for Religious Accommodation,” dated Dec. 13, 2021,
attached to Ex. JR-21 at p. 13, ECF No. 405-22
Religious Accommodation Request dated Sept. 30, 2021,	84
attached to Ex. JR-21 at p. 11, ECF No. 405-22
Deposition of Erwin Young (“Young Depo.”) at p. 26,	85
attached as Ex. JR-22 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-23
22
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 22 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

meetings in a maintenance office room with between 10 and 15
other employees.86
According to Plaintiff Young, approximately 25 to 35 other
employees were in the hangar where he worked. He testified	87
that he also often spent work hours in a smaller office shared
with other lead mechanics.88
On September 30, 2021, Plaintiff Young submitted a Religious
Accommodation Request Form. Plaintiff requested wellness	89
checks and saliva testing at Defendants’ expense as
accommodations.90
On December 16, 2021, the Hawaiian Defendants denied
Plaintiff Young’s religious accommodation request.91
Plaintiff Puanani Badiang - Corporate Trainer
Plaintiff Puanani Badiang was employed by Defendant Hawaiian
Id. at pp. 30-31	86
Id. at p. 36	87
Id. at p. 37	88
Religious Accommodation Request dated Sept. 30, 2021,	89
attached to Ex. JR-22 at pp. 14-15, ECF No. 405-23
Id. at p. 15	90
Letter to Erwin Young from Hawaiian Airlines titled,	91
“Request for Religious Accommodation - DENIAL,” dated Dec. 17,
2021, attached to Ex. JR-22 at pp. 16-17, ECF No. 405-23
23
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 23 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Airlines, Inc. as one of five corporate trainers. Plaintiff	92
Badiang testified that her position required in-person training
of Defendants’ employees. Plaintiff Badiang explained that in-	93
person trainings were usually conducted in a small office or
classroom.94
On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff Badiang submitted a
Religious Accommodation Request Form. Plaintiff did not	95
request any accommodation aside from exemption from vaccination.
On December 14, 2021, the Hawaiian Defendants denied
Plaintiff Badiang’s religious accommodation request.96
Plaintiff Badiang left her position in January 2022 and at
that time there was only one other corporate trainer in the
entire company.97
Deposition of Puanani Badiang (“Badiang Depo.”) at pp.	92
60-61, attached as Ex. JR-23 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-24
Id. at pp. 33-37	93
Id. at pp. 38-40	94
Religious Accommodation Request dated Sept. 28, 2021,	95
attached to Ex. JR-23 at pp. 25-26, ECF No. 405-24
Letter to Puanani Badiang from Hawaiian Airlines titled,	96
“Request for Religious Accommodation,” dated Dec. 14, 2021,
attached to Ex. JR-23 at p. 34, ECF No. 405-24
Badiang Depo. at pp. 60-61, attached as Ex. JR-23, ECF	97
No. 405-24
24
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 24 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENT:
Plaintiffs do not genuinely dispute any material facts.
Plaintiffs agree Defendants suffered from financial hardship as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic including more than $800 million
dollars in lost revenue and $1 billion dollars in debt.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendants suffered from
administrative and operational burdens during the COVID-19
pandemic including staffing shortages and flight cancellations.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Defendants received more
than 550 employee accommodations requests within a two-month
period following the announcement of the vaccination policy.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Hawaiian Defendants
relied upon the opinions of Dr. Chen and the general consensus of
public health officials, including guidance from the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, at the time they implemented
their vaccination policy.
Plaintiffs disagree that vaccination should have been
required. Plaintiffs argue, as a matter of law, that providing
them with their requested accommodations would not result in any
health or safety costs, operational burdens, or financial
hardship to the Hawaiian Defendants. Plaintiffs cite to an
incomplete report provided by Dr. Ram Durisetti, who disagrees
with the prevailing medical consensus about vaccine efficacy.
Plaintiffs and Dr. Durisetti rely on “hindsight reasoning” and on
25
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 25 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

material that was published and events that occurred subsequent
to the date of the Hawaiian Defendants’ employment decisions.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To defeat
summary judgment “there must be sufficient ‘evidence that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’”
Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir.
1997) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)).
The moving party has the initial burden of “identifying for
the court the portions of the materials on file that it believes
demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.”
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d
626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The moving party, however, has no burden
to negate or disprove matters on which the opponent will have the
burden of proof at trial. The moving party need not produce any
evidence at all on matters for which it does not have the burden
of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The moving party must show,
however, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That
26
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 26 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

burden is met by pointing out to the district court that there is
an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.
Id.
If the moving party meets its burden, then the opposing
party may not defeat a motion for summary judgment in the absence
of probative evidence tending to support its legal theory.
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 282
(9th Cir. 1979). The opposing party must present admissible
evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d
1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995). “If the evidence is merely
colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment
may be granted.” Nidds, 113 F.3d at 916 (quoting Anderson, 477
U.S. at 249-50).
The court views the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Martin, 872 F.2d
319, 320 (9th Cir. 1989). Opposition evidence may consist of
declarations, admissions, evidence obtained through discovery,
and matters judicially noticed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex,
477 U.S. at 324. The opposing party cannot, however, stand on
its pleadings or simply assert that it will be able to discredit
the movant’s evidence at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); T.W.
Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630. The opposing party cannot rest on
mere allegations or denials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Gasaway v.
27
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 27 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 957, 959-60 (9th Cir.
1994). “When the nonmoving party relies only on its own
affidavits to oppose summary judgment, it cannot rely on
conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data to create an
issue of material fact.” Hansen v. U.S., 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th
Cir. 1993); see also Nat’l Steel Corp. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co.,
121 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc., when on August 1, 2021, it announced that its U.S.-based
employees were required to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Plaintiffs each requested exemption or accommodation from
the policy on religious and/or medical grounds. Plaintiffs’
requests were denied.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc. and its parent company Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. (“Hawaiian
Defendants”). The only remaining claims in the Complaint are:
COUNT I: Religious Discrimination - Failure to Accommodate,
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (as to all four
Plaintiffs); and
COUNT IV: Disability Discrimination - Failure to
Accommodate, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq. (as to Plaintiff Lum).
28
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 28 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Defendants seek summary judgment in their favor as to both
counts. The Hawaiian Defendants assert that granting the
Plaintiff employees’ requests to be exempt from the vaccination
policy would have placed an undue hardship on the company and
endangered other employees and the public.
I. Plaintiffs’ Claims For Religious Discrimination Because Of A
Failure To Accommodate
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful
for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of
the employee’s religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). A claim for
religious discrimination pursuant to Title VII may be asserted
based on a theory of failure to accommodate an employee’s
religious beliefs. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d
599, 603 (9th Cir. 2004); Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1998).
To establish a failure to accommodate religion claim at the
summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must set forth a prima facie
case that (1) he had a bona fide religious belief, the practice
of which conflicts with an employment duty; (2) he informed his
employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer
subjected him to an adverse employment action because of his
inability to fulfill the job requirement. Peterson, 358 F.3d at
606.
Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden
29
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 29 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

then shifts to the employer to show that it could not reasonably
accommodate the employee without undue hardship. Id.
A. Prima Facie Case Of Failure To Accommodate Religion
It is unclear at this stage whether each Plaintiff can
establish a prima face case of failure to accommodate his or her
religious beliefs. The Court has not been provided with
sufficient information to evaluate if Plaintiffs informed the
Hawaiian Defendants of their specific religious beliefs and how
the beliefs genuinely conflicted with COVID-19 vaccination.98
The prima facie issue is not briefed in the Motion for
Summary Judgment. As a result, the Court assumes, without
deciding, that each Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of
failure to accommodate his or her religious beliefs.
The burden then shifts to the Hawaiian Defendants to show
that they could not accommodate Plaintiffs without undue hardship
on the conduct of their business. Petersen v. Snohomish Regional
Fire and Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2025).
See Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, 156 F.4th	98
886, 890 (9th Cir. 2025), order denying rehearing and rehearing
en banc in 172 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2026); Conner v.
City of Emeryville, 818 F.Supp.3d 1082, 1102 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5,
2026); see also Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth, 2025 WL 2458051, *24
(W.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 2025).
30
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 30 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

B. Undue Hardship
The United States Supreme Court has explained that an undue
hardship is more than a de minimis cost. Groff v. DeJoy, 600
U.S. 447, 453-54 (2023). The undue hardship analysis must take
into account all relevant factors, including the particular
accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of
the nature, size, and operating costs of an employer. Id. at
471.
In the context of vaccine mandates during the COVID-19
pandemic, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Petersen v.
Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211, 1218-1221
(9th Cir. 2025), that it is necessary to examine: (1) health and
safety costs, (2) operational burdens, and (3) financial burdens
on the employer in order to evaluate undue hardship.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Williams
v. Legacy Health, ___ F.4th ___, 2026 WL 1239760, *3-*4 (9th Cir.
May 6, 2026) that the costs and burdens examined in an undue
hardship analysis need not be actually realized by the employer
in order for the undue hardship defense to apply. A risk of
undue hardship is sufficient for the defense to apply so long as
the risk is realistic. Id. (citing Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1222
and E.E.O.C. v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 615 (9th
Cir. 1988)).
31
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 31 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

1. Health And Safety Costs
a. The Medical Consensus in 2021 Provided That
COVID-19 Vaccination Prevented The Spread Of
The Disease, Reduced The Severity Of The
Illness, And Lowered Risks Of Hospitalization
And Death
The Hawaiian Defendants provided a Declaration and an expert
report from their medical expert Dr. Frederick Ming Chen, M.D.,
M.P.H.99
In 2021 and 2022, Dr. Chen served as an advisor to the
Hawaiian Defendants in their implementation of their vaccination
policy and their review of accommodations requests. At that	100
time, Dr. Chen served as a Professor of Family Medicine at the
University of Washington and Chief of Family Medicine at
Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. From July 2022 to	101
January 2026, Dr. Chen served as the Chief Health and Science
Officer at the American Medical Association.102
In his expert report, Dr. Chen explains that the consensus
in the scientific community and by public health authorities in
2021 was that COVID-19 vaccination was necessary to protect the
Chen Decl., attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-26;	99
Amended Expert Report of Dr. Frederick Chen, attached as Ex. FC-1
to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-27.
Chen Decl. at ¶¶ 8-10, ECF No. 405-26	100
Id. at ¶¶ 2-3	101
Id. at ¶ 1	102
32
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 32 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

public, reduce the severity of the illness, and lower the risk
and number of hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19.103
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, has recognized
that the medical consensus from health experts, including the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supported
vaccination mandates by employers during the height of the COVID-
19 pandemic in 2021. Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v.
Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), cert.
denied, __ S.Ct.__, 2026 WL 1377038, at *1 (U.S. May 18, 2026)
(No. 25-765).
The Ninth Circuit Appellate Court ruled that it is
reasonable for an employer to rely on the prevailing medical
consensus to implement a vaccination mandate for its employees.
Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., 148 F.4th at 1031 (finding “it
was more than reasonable for the LAUSD to conclude that COVID-19
vaccines would protect the health and safety of its employees and
students”); see Williams v. Legacy Health, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL
1239760, *4 (9th Cir. May 6, 2026) (finding the employer was
entitled to summary judgment where “[t]he statistical evidence
available to Legacy revealed that high vaccination rates, while
Chen Expert Report at pp. 2-4, ECF No. 405-27; Chen Decl.	103
at ¶¶ 15-16, ECF No. 405-26. Dr. Chen states that “COVID-19
vaccines are safe, effective, and associated with mild side
effects and a greatly reduced risk of severe illness or death.
Once administered, vaccines are a safety measure that cannot be
circumvented or subject to human error.” (Chen Decl. at ¶ 11,
ECF No. 405-26).
33
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 33 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

not a panacea, reduced overall transmission risk. Vaccination
also proved highly effective at preventing infection in the
healthcare setting”).
b. Risks To The Public, Employees, and Customer
Health
In order for an employer to prevail on an undue hardship
defense, it must demonstrate that accommodating the plaintiff
would result in substantial costs, not just de minimis costs.
Groff, 600 U.S. at 469.
The substantial costs required for an undue hardship defense
include risks to the health and safety of the employer’s staff
and its clients. Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1239760, at *3.
A risk of undue hardship is substantial when the risk is
realistic and not merely conceivable or hypothetical. Id.
(citing Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1222).
In Williams v. Legacy Health, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1239760,
*4 (9th Cir. May 6, 2026), the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court
ruled that the employer was entitled to summary judgment because
allowing its employees to be exempt from the employer’s
vaccination policy posed realistic health and safety risks. The
Appellate Court ruled that granting the employees’ exemption
requests posed three distinct risks to the employer, as follows:
First, there was a risk that Employees would become ill
and cause staffing issues from their absence.
34
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 34 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Second, much like the firefighters in Petersen,
Employees’ risk of infection posed concerns for other
staff needed to treat patients.
Finally, the transmission risk would also affect
Legacy’s patient population, many of whom had
preexisting conditions—or comorbidities—which could
cause an even greater strain on Legacy’s services. At
several points in the record, Legacy’s expert examined
alternative safety protocols—including masking, using
other personal protective equipment, and regular
testing—and concluded at each turn that those
alternatives were not sufficient replacement[s] for
vaccination.
Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Just as in Williams, the undisputed evidence in the record
here demonstrates that allowing Plaintiffs to be exempt from the
Hawaiian Defendants’ vaccination policy posed realistic risks
that: (1) Plaintiffs would become ill and cause staffing issues,
(2) Plaintiffs’ risk of infection posed concerns for the wellness
of other staff, and (3) the transmission risk would also affect
the Hawaiian Defendants’ customers and the public in airports and
aboard aircraft.
In August 2021, COVID-19 cases rose significantly in
Hawaii. The Hawaii Department of Health reported a “tidal	104
wave” of 10,817 infections between August 15, 2021 and August 29,
2021.105
Hawaii Department of Health Press Release entitled,	104
“HAWAII SURPASSES 10,000 ACTIVE COVID-19 CASES,” dated August 29,
2021, attached as Ex. JR-5 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-6
Id.	105
35
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 35 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Surges in positive cases due to variants of the virus
“convinced Hawaiian management that instituting the Vaccine
Policy was necessary to maintaining the safety of Hawaiian’s
employees.” By September 2021, it had been reported that three	106
of Defendants’ employees had died as a result of COVID-19. One	107
of the employees who died was a flight attendant who tested
positive for COVID-19 along with 16 others after an in-person
training event held in the conference rooms at Hawaiian’s
corporate headquarters.108
Just as the rise in cases from the Delta variant posed a
risk to the defendant employer in Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL
1239760, at *4, the rise in COVID-19 cases from the Delta variant
in August 2021 provided a realistic risk of harm to the Hawaiian
Defendants’ business as they reasonably sought to ensure that
their employees were vaccinated.
Numerous courts have found that the possibility of an
unvaccinated individual getting others sick is a non-speculative
risk that supports a finding of undue hardship on an employer in
Declaration of Defendant’s Vice President of Human	106
Resources Robin Kobayashi at ¶ 12, ECF No. 405-39
Chen Expert Report at p. 3, ECF No. 405-27; Kobayashi	107
Decl. at ¶ 8, ECF No. 405-39
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 8, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No.	108
405-39; Corporate Communication dated July 22, 2020 from Chief
Executive Officer Peter Ingram to all Hawaiian employees
regarding the death of flight attendant Jeff Kurtzman, attached
as Ex. RK-1 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-40
36
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 36 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

the COVID-19 context. Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1219; Hall v.
Sheppard Pratt Health Sys., 155 F.4th 747, 753-54 (4th Cir. 2025)
(finding that “[i]t is likely that granting even [a] single
religious exemption would have constituted an undue hardship for
the hospital system”); Melino v. Boston Med. Ctr., 127 F.4th 391,
397-98 (1st Cir. 2025); Bordeaux v. Lions Gate Entertainment,
Inc., 703 F.Supp.3d 1117, 1136 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2023)
(collecting cases), aff’d, 2025 WL 655065 (9th Cir. Feb. 28,
2025).
Just as in Williams, the undisputed evidence in the record
demonstrates a realistic risk of harm to the health and safety of
Defendants’ employees, their business, and the public.
c. Testing and Masking Were Not Reasonable
Alternatives To Vaccination
Dr. Chen explains in his expert report that alternatives to
vaccination were not reasonable in this case. Dr. Chen	109
explained why testing was an insufficient accommodation, as
follows:
While vaccines are prophylactic measures meant to
prevent the contraction and transmission of COVID-19,
testing is a diagnostic tool that simply determines
whether an individual has COVID-19 at a particular
moment in time. Therefore, it is possible for an
employee to test negative on a given day, contract
COVID-19 after the test is administered, and be
contagious before the next test is administered. In
Chen Decl. at ¶ 12, ECF No. 405-26	109
37
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 37 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

the meantime, that employee could have exposed their
colleagues, customers, or other members of the
community to COVID-19. Additionally, any lag time
between obtaining a test swab from an employee to
receiving a positive test result would enable an
infected employee to expose those around them to COVID-
19. Finally, tests are not 100% accurate, further
risking the possibility than an infected employee could
expose others to COVID-19.110
Dr. Chen also explained why masking and social distancing
were insufficient accommodations:
Other measures like masking and social distancing are
similarly insufficient. As a preventative measure,
masking requires that the employee properly wear a
well-fitting mask at all relevant times....
Unfortunately, as I have observed, it can be difficult
for individuals to remain consistently vigilant with
mask-wearing, which reduces what protection masking
does provide. Similarly, social distancing requires
constant attention to where an individual is situated
as compared to others, and is therefore also subject to
human discretion an error.111
Although Plaintiffs each submitted declarations that stated
that they would have agreed to testing and masking, “Plaintiffs
fail to provide any evidence that their proposed accommodation
would have been a reasonable alternative to vaccination.”
Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1219. Plaintiffs’ general assertions that
they could have safely performed their jobs with testing and
masking are “unsupported by any medical evidence and would be
impossible to prove at trial.” Id. at 1220.
Even if Plaintiffs would have agreed to testing and masking,
Id.	110
Chen Decl. at ¶ 13, ECF No. 405-26	111
38
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 38 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiff provide no admissible evidence to dispute Dr. Chen’s
findings that testing, masking, and social distancing were
subject to user error and less effective than vaccination.
Testing was just a diagnostic tool, unlike vaccination which was
a prophylactic means to control outbreaks.112
Plaintiffs argue that the Hawaiian Defendants were not
motivated by health and safety costs. Plaintiffs’ argument is
not relevant and misplaced. See Oka v. United Airlines, Inc.,
2026 WL 810815, *8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2026) *8 (finding the
possible, multiple motivations why the airline imposed a
vaccination mandate were not relevant and did not undercut the
evidence that accommodating the pilot posed an undue hardship).
Plaintiffs ask the Court to consider responses of other
airlines and employers to the COVID-19 pandemic. As explained by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, responses taken by other
employers, especially with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic, are
not relevant to the evaluation of reasonable accommodations and
undue hardship to a particular defendant. Williams, __ F.4th __,
2026 WL 1239760, at *3-*4 (citing Groff, 600 U.S. at 470)). The
undue hardship analysis is limited to the context of the
particular business before the court, and not the decisions of
any other employer. Id.
There is also undisputed evidence in the record that the
Id. at ¶ 12	112
39
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 39 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

temporary testing program implemented by the Hawaiian Defendants
was unduly burdensome. The testing program was not effective	113
and resulted in financial burdens and operational disruptions due
to non-compliance and untimely testing. Defendants issued over	114
150 non-compliance letters in two months and suffered
unpredictable staffing shortages when it allowed testing in lieu
of vaccination.115
Plaintiffs’ requests to be exempt from the vaccination
policy would have resulted in an undue hardship to Defendants
because it would have jeopardized the safety of others, including
Plaintiffs’ co-workers, Defendants’ customers, and the public.
See Bhatia v. Chevron, 734 F.2d 1382, 1383-84 (9th Cir. 1984);
Bordeaux, 2025 WL 655065, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2025); Efimoff
v. Port of Seattle, 2024 WL 4765161, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13,
2024) (finding proposed accommodation of masking, periodic
testing, and social distancing would have resulted in an undue
hardship on the employer in the context of COVID-19); White v.
Columbia Sportswear Co., 2025 WL 4677360, *15-*19 (D. Or. Nov.
20, 2025), adopted in 2026 WL 967325, *1 (D. Or. Apr. 7, 2026).
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶¶ 23-26, ECF No. 405-39	113
Id.; Def.’s CSF at ¶¶ 21-25, ECF No. 405	114
Def.’s CSF at ¶¶ 24-25, ECF No. 405	115
40
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 40 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

d. Plaintiffs’ Job Positions Required Them To Be
Physically Present And Social Distancing Was
Not A Reasonable Alternative To Vaccination
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Petersen that
courts should look to the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for guidance to determine if
health and safety costs would have imposed an undue hardship on
an employer. Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1220 (citing Groff, 600 U.S.
at 471).
The EEOC stated that when considering undue hardship in the
context of COVID-19, employers should consider if the employee
“works in a solitary or group setting,” “has close contact with
other employees or members of the public,” and “works outdoors or
indoors.”116
Each of the EEOC’s identified factors supports a finding of
undue hardship in this case.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that each of their job roles
required them to work in-person and could not be accommodated
with remote work. Pilots, customer service agents, maintenance
workers, and corporate trainers all required interaction with co-
workers and had to be physically present in public settings and
Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1220 (citing What You Should Know	116
About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO
Laws, EEOC (published Mar. 1, 2022), https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/
what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-an
d-other-eeo-laws [https://perma.cc/CQ9C-JPNY]).
41
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 41 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

required travel through airports. See Oka, 2026 WL 810815, at *8
(finding undue hardship based on risk of transmitting COVID-19 by
pilots because “pilots must walk to and from the airplane, often
through a crowded airport. They also spend time with the rest of
their flight crew between flights, for example, spending layovers
at a Union-approved hotel. United might have viewed its flights
as safe and nonetheless been concerned that unvaccinated pilots
could spread COVID elsewhere at work”).
Ronald Lum, as a pilot, sat in close quarters in cockpits
and the physical dimensions of the cockpits in Hawaiian’s
aircraft do not allow for social distancing.117
Sabrina Franks, as a customer service agent, required
interaction with customers regularly, even if she was assigned
light duty in one of the lounges.118
Erwin Young, as a lead aircraft mechanic, worked with other
mechanics in enclosed indoor spaces and held regular meetings in
a small office.119
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 18, ECF No. 405-50; Deposition of	117
Ronald Lum at pp. 29-30, attached as Ex. JR-20 to Def.’s CSF, ECF
No. 405-21;
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 19, ECF No. 405-50; Deposition of	118
Sabrina Franks at pp. 25-26, attached as Ex. JR-21 to Def.’s CSF,
ECF No. 405-22
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 20, ECF No. 405-50; Deposition of	119
Erwin Young at pp. 26, 30-31, 36-38, attached as Ex. JR-22 to
Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-23; Declaration of Maintenance Manager
Brian Kirkpatrick at ¶¶ 1-4, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-
35; Photo of Sheet Metal Hangar, attached as Ex. BK-1 to Def.’s
42
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 42 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Puanani Badiang was one of two corporate trainers by January
2022 who led training sessions of current and incoming employees
in indoor group settings.120
Allowing Plaintiffs to work in airports unvaccinated in late
2021 would have come at a substantial cost to the Hawaiian
Defendants. The objective, unrebutted medical evidence shows
that Defendants would have faced significant health and safety
risks by allowing unvaccinated employees to continue working and
endangering co-workers, customers, and the public. It is well-
established that public health experts at the time recommended
that individuals receive COVID-19 vaccinations and had been
reporting that such vaccinations were effective in preventing the
spread of the disease. Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., 148
F.4th at 1024 (en banc); Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1239760,
at *3-*4.
The threat to the health and safety of Defendants’ employees
and the public at large in allowing unvaccinated employees to
CSF, ECF No. 405-36; Photo of Maintenance Office, attached as Ex.
BK-2 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-37; Photo of floor plan of the
hangar attached to Def.’s BK-3 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-38
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 21, ECF No. 405-50; Deposition of	120
Puanani Badiang at pp. 28-29, 33-41, 45, 61, attached as Ex. JR-
23 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-24; Declaration of Project Manager
Rachelle Fushikoshi at ¶¶ 1-3, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No.
405-32; Photos of floor plans of corporate training classrooms,
attached as Ex. RF-1 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-33; Photo of
corporate training classroom, attached as Ex. RF-2 to Def.’s CSF,
ECF No. 405-34
43
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 43 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

work in Defendants’ aircraft, in airports, and in crowded public
settings is undisputed. “[I]t was more than reasonable for [the
employer] to conclude that COVID-19 vaccines would protect the
health and safety of its employees.” Health Freedom Defense
Fund, Inc., 148 F.4th at 1031.
Permitting Plaintiffs to remain unvaccinated at work would
have risked the health and safety of others in the workplace
(even with mitigation measures such as masking, testing, and
social distancing), and such health and safety risks amount to an
undue hardship on Defendants in this case. Petersen, 150 F.4th
at 1219-20; Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1239760, at *3-*4;
Trusov v. Ore. Health & Sci. Univ., 2025 WL 2462782, at *5-*6 (D.
Or. Aug. 26, 2025).
e. Plaintiffs’ Partial Expert Report Relies On
Hindsight Reasoning And Material That Was
Published After The Employment Decisions Were
Made
It is well-settled that an employer cannot be liable for
failure to provide an accommodation based on information that was
not known to the employer at the time of its decision-making.
Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 798 (9th Cir. 1982).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has definitively ruled
that an employer cannot be liable for failure-to-accommodate
based on information regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccinations
that did not exist at the time it denied an accommodation
44
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 44 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

request. Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1222.
In Petersen, the Ninth Circuit ruled that an employer’s
accommodation decision cannot be evaluated in hindsight. Id.
Future medical studies and post-pandemic debates over COVID-19
are not relevant in evaluating a failure-to-accommodate claim and
the undue hardship risk faced by the employer. Id.; see
Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1239760, at *4 (explaining the
undue hardship analysis is limited to the scientific evidence and
COVID data that was then available to the employer).
Here, Plaintiffs have submitted excerpts of an expert report
from Dr. Ram Durisetti. Dr. Durisetti disagrees with Dr. Chen	121
and the prevailing medical consensus at the time of Defendants’
accommodations decisions. Dr. Durisetti has his own opinions
about vaccination efficacy and COVID-19. Dr. Durisetti’s
opinions, even if admissible, were not available to Defendants at
the time Plaintiffs requested their accommodations.
Dr. Durisetti does not (and cannot) dispute that the
prevailing medical consensus at the time of the Hawaiian
Defendants’ decision-making in 2021 was that vaccination would
promote employee and public safety from COVID-19 and limit
operational disruption. In Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v.
Carvalho, 148 F.4th at 1031 (en banc), the Ninth Circuit Court of
Excerpts of Revised Expert Report of Ram Durisetti, M.D.,	121
Ph.D., attached as Ex. 6 to Pl.’s CSF, ECF No. 412-7
45
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 45 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Appeals recognized that CDC guidance in 2021 reported that COVID-
19 vaccines were “highly effective at protecting vaccinated
people against symptomatic and severe COVID-19,” that “[f]ully
vaccinated people are less likely to become infected,” and “less
likely to get and spread SARS-CoV-2,” and that the CDC
recommended that “everyone 5 years and older protect themselves
from COVID-19 by getting fully vaccinated.” (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
Dr. Durisetti does not dispute that the Hawaiian Defendants
relied on guidance from both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and Dr. Chen in implementing the vaccination
policy and in reviewing Plaintiffs’ accommodations requests.
Plaintiffs impermissibly attempt to rely on information and
studies conducted after-the-fact. See Williams, __ F.4th __,
2026 WL 1239760, at *4 (finding the employer was entitled to
summary judgment where the employees pointed to no evidence that
contradicted the employer’s contemporary assessment regarding
COVID-19 vaccines but rather attempted to rely on post-vaccine
data and hindsight).
The only medical study evidence that was provided in
Plaintiffs’ Opposition was first issued on January 19, 2022,122
well-after the date that the Defendants denied Plaintiffs’
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report dated January 19,	122
2022, attached as Ex. 26 to Pl.’s CSF, ECF No. 412-27
46
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 46 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

requests for accommodations in 2021.
f. Plaintiffs’ Partial Expert Report Is
Unreliable And Incomplete
Dr. Durisetti does not attach any medical evidence or
studies to his report. No other medical evidence has been
provided by Plaintiffs in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. It is difficult to evaluate the relevancy and
reliability of Dr. Durisetti’s partial report. Engilis v.
Monsanto Co., 151 F.4th 1040, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2025);
see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597
(1993).
The evidence cited in Dr. Durisetti’s partial report relies
on website links that generally do not specify a publication date
and do not prevent the information from being edited. Dr.
Durisetti’s amended report, as provided in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion, is incomplete as it is missing numerous
paragraphs and pages. In the portion of the report provided	123
with Plaintiffs’ Opposition, Dr. Durisetti relies on non-peer
reviewed information with little or no methodology and relies on
information that was published after the accommodations decisions
The report appears to be missing paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4,	123
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 46 onward omitted from
the exhibit, see Revised Expert Report of Ram Durisetti, M.D.,
Ph.D., attached as Ex. 6 to Pl.’s CSF, ECF No. 412-7; District of
Hawaii Local Rule 56.1(b), (f)
47
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 47 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

were made.
The incomplete, partial report does not allow the Court to
review whether the reasoning or methodology underlying Dr.
Durisetti’s opinions are reliable and whether the reasoning or
methodology can properly be applied to the facts at issue. Kumho
Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 157 (1999) (nothing
requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is
connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert).
The information in Dr. Durisetti’s partial report does not
create any genuine issues of material fact. It is necessary to
confine the evidence regarding the availability of reasonable
accommodations and the undue hardship defense to the information
that was available to the employer when it made its adverse
employment decision. See Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1239760,
at *4.124
Dr. Durisetti’s opinions disagreeing with the vaccination
policy and critiquing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in
hindsight do not raise genuine issues of material fact.
Richardson v. National Basketball Association, 2025 WL 2402614 at
*11-13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18. 2025) (plaintiff’s expert’s
See also Lavelle-Hayden v. Legacy Health, 744 F.Supp.3d	124
1135, 1152 (D. Or. 2024); Efimoff, 2024 WL 4765161, at *9
(collecting cases). The First Circuit Court of Appeals has held,
just like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that an employer
may permissibly rely on the prevailing public health medical
consensus in implementing a vaccination policy. Rodrique v.
Hearst Communications, Inc., 126 F.4th 85, 91-92 (1st Cir. 2025).
48
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 48 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

“disagreements with public health management of the pandemic are
irrelevant to the particular issues that created hardship for the
NBA and the reasonableness of the NBA’s reliance on its experts
in 2021 and 2022”); see Rosa v. City of Issaquah, 2025 WL
2733672, at *14-*19 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2025); Parker v.
PeaceHealth, 2024 WL 4993472, at *3-*5 (D. Or. Dec. 5, 2024).
The Hawaiian Defendants were permitted to rely on the public
health consensus as it existed at the time of the employment
decisions. Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., 148 F.4th at 1031.
Dr. Durisetti’s disagreement with the medical consensus does not
create a dispute of fact for the jury. See Oka, 2026 WL 810815,
at *6 (finding that United Airlines properly relied on the
prevailing medical consensus at the time that vaccination was the
most effective way of containing COVID-19 and that the expert’s
reliance on other studies did not create a genuine issue of
material fact); see also Carlson v. City of Redmond, 2025 WL
3496535, at *10-*11 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2025); Nilsen v. Univ. of
Wash. Med. Ctr., 2024 WL 4723233, at *13 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8,
2024); Zimmerman, 2025 WL 2458051, at *18.
2. Operational Burdens
a. Cumulative Hardship Given The Numerosity Of
The Accommodations Requests
It is appropriate for the court to consider the aggregate or
cumulative effects of providing accommodations when multiple,
49
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 49 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

similarly situated employees request accommodations in the same
time period. Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1220 (“The cost of
accommodating nearly twenty-five percent of its firefighters is
substantial....And given the circumstances, there can be no doubt
that granting that many exemptions would have hamstrung
[defendant’s] operations.”); see Lavelle-Hayden, 744 F.Supp.3d at
1152.
The Hawaiian Defendants typically received between five and
ten religious accommodations requests in a given year. In the	125
two months between August 1, 2021 and October 1, 2021, the
Hawaiian Defendants received 496 religious accommodations
requests and 72 medical accommodations requests for a total of
568 accommodations requests.126
The accommodations requests came from all of Defendants’
major operational groups including 71 pilots, 268 flight
attendants, 138 airport operations employees, and 22 maintenance
and technical operations employees.127
According to Plaintiffs, the Hawaiian Defendants had
approximately 7,000 employees in 2021 and that nearly 8% of their
Def.’s CSF at ¶ 20, ECF No. 405	125
Id.	126
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 4, ECF No. 405-50	127
50
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 50 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

employees requested accommodations from the vaccination policy.128
There can be no dispute that the Hawaiian Defendants faced a
serious operational burden if they had to accommodate a
significant percentage of their workforce across all of their
major operational groups. See Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1220; Buss
v. Peacehealth, 2026 WL 1256912, at *14 (D. Or. May 7, 2026)
(finding the defendant employer could not have accommodated the
plaintiff and the hundreds of other employees who sought
exemption from the employer’s vaccination policy without undue
hardship).
Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment primarily consists of e-mail
correspondence between Hawaiian management employees. The e-	129
mails discuss the burden of Defendants’ handling the more than
550 accommodations requests at the same time and the difficulty
of administering the testing program. Plaintiffs argue that the
e-mails show there were summary denials of their accommodations
requests. Even if true, the evidence does not create a genuine
issue of material fact. As explained in Williams, individualized
consideration was not required because no accommodation was
Plaintiffs do not cite to any evidence to support the	128
claimed number of Defendants’ employees but the Court construes
the record in Plaintiffs’ favor.
See Pl.’s Exs. 1-3, 7-11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 28, attached to	129
Pl.’s CSF in Opp., ECF Nos. 412-2, 412-3, 412-4, 412-8, 412-9,
412-10, 412-11, 412-12, 412-14, 412-16, 412-22, 412-29
51
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 51 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

possible without undue hardship. 2026 WL 1239760, *5 (citing
Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 68-69 (1986)
(explaining that undue hardship is at issue only where the
employer cannot “offer any reasonable accommodation without such
hardship”).
The evidence does not undercut Defendants’ undue hardship
defense. In addition to the administrative burden, the sheer
number of accommodations requests compounded the risk of
unvaccinated employees spreading COVID-19. See Kather v. Asante
Health Sys., 2025 WL 1788267, at *7 (D. Or. June 25, 2025)
(finding receipt and review of 690 accommodations requests from
13% of its employees between September and October 2021 placed an
undue hardship on the employer). The cumulative risk would have
been much greater than the individual impact of a single
unvaccinated employee given the numerosity of the requests at the
same time.
b. Allowing Unvaccinated Employees To Work On
Aircraft And In And Around Airports Created
An Unreasonable Risk Of Continued Operational
Disruptions
The Hawaiian Defendants were negatively affected by the
COVID-19 pandemic and were forced to cancel flights and lost
revenue due to employee illness. Chief Operations Officer	130
Snook Decl. at ¶¶ 3-8, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No.	130
405-43
52
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 52 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Jonathan Snook stated that there was continued concern during the
pandemic of possible outbreaks and further operational
disruption.131
Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.’s routes were all to or
from locations in the Hawaiian Islands. Crew shortages were a	132
major concern because of the location in Hawaii. The Hawaiian	133
Defendants had a harder time than major network carriers in
diverting aircraft and personnel from other locations.134
The Hawaiian Defendants were in a unique position as they
employed more staff in Hawaii than any other carrier and were the
only carrier headquartered in Hawaii. Many of Defendants’	135
employees were unionized and staffing options and replacements
were limited by contractual restrictions such that any cluster of
COVID-19 cases had significant operational impact on the
Defendants.136
Allowing Plaintiffs to work in the airports unvaccinated
posed a substantial risk of further operational disruption. The
Id. at ¶¶ 4-5	131
Id. at ¶ 3	132
Id. at ¶¶ 3-5	133
Id.	134
Snook Decl. at ¶ 5, ECF No. 405-43; Deposition of	135
Jonathan Snook at pp. 78-79 (“Snook Depo.”), attached to Def.’s
CSF as Ex. JR-2, ECF No. 405-3
Snook Decl. at ¶ 5, ECF No. 405-43	136
53
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 53 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

availability of employees was a constraint on Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc.’s ability to fly and the airline had already faced
issues with outbreaks of COVID-19 among co-workers that caused
operational disruption and canceled flights.137
There are no genuine disputes of material fact that
allowing unvaccinated employees to fly Defendants’ aircraft,
interact with their customers, interface with their other
employees, and engage with the public would have created a risk
of further operational disruptions. There is no dispute that
outbreaks of COVID-19 cases continued in Hawaii following the
announcement of the Hawaiian Defendants’ vaccination policy.138
Allowing unvaccinated employees to potentially spread
illness during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an
undue hardship because the Hawaiian Defendants “could not afford
to have substantial numbers of [their employees] on sick leave.”
Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1220.
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 3, ECF No. 405-39; Snook Decl. at ¶	137
6, ECF No. 405-43
Hawaii Department of Health Press Release entitled,	138
“HAWAII SURPASSES 10,000 ACTIVE COVID-19 CASES,” dated August 29,
2021, attached as Ex. JR-5 to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-6; Hawaii
Department of Health Press Release entitled, “SURGING COVID-19
CASE COUNTS & TEST VOLUME FORCE CHANGES TO DATA REPORTING AND
CASE INVESTIGATION,” dated January 15, 2022, attached as Ex. JR-6
to Def.’s CSF, ECF No. 405-7
54
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 54 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

3. Financial Burdens
Undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the
overall context of an employer’s business. Groff, 600 U.S. at
468. An undue hardship is more than a de minimis cost and must
result in substantial expenditures or substantial additional
costs. Id.; Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1221 (finding the employer
risked incurring substantial financial costs in allowing
unvaccinated employees to work because it would result in
absenteeism, scheduling issues, potential liability, and
potential loss of a lucrative contract).
a. The Hawaiian Defendants Faced Massive
Passenger Decline During The Pandemic And
Lost Approximately $896 Million Dollars And
Took On Over $1 Billion Dollars In Debt
Travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders severely
impacted the airline industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.139
In 2019, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. transported
approximately 11,737,000 passengers on its routes.140
In 2020, as COVID-19 hit, the Defendant airline’s number of
passengers dropped exponentially to just 3,353,000. The vast	141
Snook Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8, ECF No. 405-43	139
Snook Depo. at p. 111, attached to Def.’s CSF as Ex. JR-	140
2, ECF No. 405-3
Id.	141
55
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 55 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

majority of those 3 million passengers flew in January, February,
and early March of 2020, prior to the lockdown and government-
ordered restrictions.142
In 2021, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.’s passenger
traffic started to increase and Defendant transported
approximately 6,515,000 passengers.143
During the height of the pandemic between 2020 and 2022, the
Hawaiian Defendants lost approximately $896,000,000.00 dollars
and took on over $1,000,000,000.00 dollars in debt.144
There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the
Hawaiian Defendants suffered significant financial losses and
faced continued risks of further financial hardship during the
COVID-19 pandemic when they announced their vaccine policy in
August 2021.
The Hawaiian Defendants reviewed their policies and
procedures in an attempt to minimize financial loss during the
pandemic.145
Unvaccinated employees and absenteeism imposed real and
substantial costs to the Hawaiian Defendants and also threatened
real costs to the community. Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1221. The
Id.	142
Id. at p. 112	143
Def.’s CSF at ¶ 2, ECF No. 405	144
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶ 3, ECF No. 405-39	145
56
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 56 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

financial risks faced by the Hawaiian Defendants were substantial
and allowing employees to work unvaccinated posed a realistic
threat of continued substantial costs on the operation of their
business. Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1239760, at *3-*4.
b. The Hawaiian Defendants Considered It
Necessary To Follow The Federal Contractor
Mandate To Prevent Further Financial Hardship
As explained in Petersen, financial burdens such as the loss
of a lucrative contract are “a textbook economic hardship” and
the type of costs that constitutes an undue hardship for purposes
of Title VII claims. Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1221 (citing
Lavelle-Hayden, 744 F.Supp.3d at 1151).
On September 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order
14042, known as the Federal Contractor Mandate, which required
contractors such as Defendants to ensure that their employees
were vaccinated for COVID-19 except in limited circumstances.146
When vaccination was not possible, masking and social distancing
in compliance with CDC Guidance were required in order to comply
with the Federal Contractor Mandate.147
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 5, attached to Def.’s CSF, ECF No.	146
405-50; Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors,
dated November 10, 2021, attached as Ex. WJ-2 to Def.’s CSF, ECF
No. 405-52
Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors,	147
dated November 10, 2021, attached as Ex. WJ-2 to Def.’s CSF, ECF
No. 405-52; Def.’s CSF at ¶ 8, ECF No. 405
57
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 57 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

The Hawaiian Defendants followed the requirements of the
Federal Contractor Mandate even though they were aware there was
federal court litigation challenging it. They “determined that
in order to best protect its employees, it would continue to
comply with the Federal Contractor Mandate’s guidelines.”148
The Hawaiian Defendants faced potential loss of federal
government contracts if they failed to comply with the Federal
Contractor Mandate. COO Jonathan Snook explained that “[d]uring
the pandemic, Hawaiian’s contracts with the federal government,
including contracts with the Department of Defense and the U.S.
Postal Service, were a critical source of revenue for the
company.” “Hawaiian’s financial survival during the pandemic	149
depended on its status as a federal contractor.”150
The Hawaiian Defendants were concerned that any potential
accommodation for Plaintiffs would jeopardize their contract with
the United States Government pursuant to the Federal Contractor
Mandate because masking and social distancing were not feasible
for Plaintiffs’ positions. As explained earlier, Plaintiffs	151
refused to comply with the vaccination policy, their jobs
prevented them from being able to socially distance, and
Def.’s CSF at ¶ 9, ECF No. 405	148
Snook Decl. at ¶ 14, ECF No. 405-43	149
Id.	150
Jackson Decl. at ¶ 13, ECF No. 405-50	151
58
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 58 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiffs could not be continuously monitored through the
administration of testing and masking. Potential loss of
Defendants’ federal contractor status presented a realistic risk
of substantial financial hardship to the Hawaiian Defendants.
Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1221.
c. The Hawaiian Defendants Incurred Substantial
Expenditures In Implementing Their Testing
Program
The Hawaiian Defendants also suffered financial costs in
implementing their Transitional Period Testing Program that
proved to be unduly burdensome and expensive. The testing	152
program cost $320,000 for two months of testing. The testing	153
program was not effective and resulted in financial burdens and
operational disruptions due to untimely testing and non-
compliance.154
In addition to vendor costs, the testing program required
additional staffing costs, and the testing program was
ineffective with more than 1,300 tests producing no results that
resulting in employees being held out of service and requiring
Defendants to pay overtime to others. Defendants issued over	155
Kobayashi Decl. at ¶¶ 23-26, ECF No. 405-39	152
Id. at ¶ 24	153
Id.	154
Def.’s CSF at ¶¶ 21-25, ECF No. 405	155
59
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 59 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

150 non-compliance letters in two months and suffered
unpredictable staffing shortages when they allowed testing in
lieu of vaccination.156
Plaintiffs’ arguments that they individually always complied
with testing and that the Hawaiian Defendants should have made
different arrangements for testing do not create a genuine
dispute of material fact that alters the undue hardship analysis.
Plaintiffs have provided no evidence regarding the availability
of testing in 2021, the suitability of different vendors, or the
reliability of any of their proposed testing methods. Plaintiffs
also have provided no evidence to dispute the financial burdens
imposed on Defendants in implementing their testing program and
the costs that they would have incurred if they continued to
implement a testing program as an accommodation.
C. The Undisputed Evidence Demonstrates That The Hawaiian
Defendants Could Not Reasonably Accommodate Plaintiffs
Without Undue Hardship On The Conduct Of Their Business
In sum, construing the record in a light most favorable to
the Plaintiffs, there are no genuine disputes of material fact
that any method of accommodating Plaintiffs’ objections to
vaccination while maintaining their conditions of employment
would have resulted in undue hardship to the Hawaiian Defendants.
The undue hardship includes: (1) the health and safety risks to
Def.’s CSF at ¶ 25, ECF No. 405	156
60
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 60 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

the public, Defendants’ customers, and Defendants’ own employees;
(2) the risk to the Defendants’ operations and the cost of
widespread absences; (3) the financial losses caused by continued
business disruption, the costs of the testing program, and the
potential loss of lucrative contracts with the United States
federal government.
The Hawaiian Defendants provided medical evidence that
showed the inadequacy of masking, testing, and social distancing
as alternatives to vaccination. Plaintiffs’ attempts to rely on
hindsight reasoning and after-the-fact studies and information
are irrelevant and do not create genuine disputes of material
fact. Oka, 2026 WL 810815, at *7-*9. No reasonable juror could
conclude that a reasonable accommodation existed that would not
cause undue hardship on Defendants. Williams, __ F.4th __, 2026
WL 1239760, at *5. The Hawaiian Defendants could not have
accommodated Plaintiffs without undue hardship in the form of
substantial health and safety costs, operational burdens, and
financial burdens and costs on the employer. See Groff, 600 U.S.
at 469; Petersen, 150 F.4th at 1221-22.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I for
Failure to Accommodate Plaintiffs’ Religious Beliefs (ECF No.
406) is GRANTED.
61
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 61 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

II. Plaintiff Lum’s Claim For Disability Discrimination Based On
Failure To Accommodate
Title I of the ADA prohibits employment discrimination
against a qualified individual because of the disability of such
individual. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
To demonstrate a prima facie claim pursuant to the Americans
With Disabilities Act, Plaintiff Lum must establish:
(1) he is disabled within the meaning of the Americans With
Disabilities Act;
(2) he is a qualified individual who can perform the
essential functions of his job either with or without
reasonable accommodations and;
(3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his
disability.
Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1237
(9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b)(5)(A)).
If a defendant establishes a prima facie ADA claim, the
burden shifts to the defendant who may invoke affirmative
defenses: (1) that the accommodation “would impose an undue
hardship on the operation of the business” or (2) that the
plaintiff would “pose a direct threat to the health or safety of
other individuals in the workplace.” 42 U.S.C. §§
12112(b)(5)(A), 12113(b); see Echazabal v. Chevron USA, Inc., 336
F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003).
A direct threat under the ADA is a significant risk of
substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or
62
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 62 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable
accommodation. Echazabal, 336 F.3d at 1028 (citing 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(r)). “[T]he views of public health authorities, such as
the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes
of Health, are of special weight and authority.” Bragdon v.
Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 650 (1998).
A. Disabled
A disability is “a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities of [an]
individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).
The record demonstrates that Plaintiff Lum submitted a
letter from Philip Suh, M.D. to Defendants stating that,
“[b]ecause of patient’s medical condition, I would recommend that
he not get the covid vaccine at this time.” The letter is	157
insufficient to demonstrate Plaintiff Lum was disabled within the
meaning of the Americans With Disabilities Act at the time he
sought accommodation.
Plaintiff Lum asserts in his Affidavit dated January 4,
2022, that he has coronary artery disease.158
Letter dated Sept. 23, 2021, attached to Ex. JR-20 at p.	157
16, ECF No. 405-21
Unnotarized Affidavit of Ronald Lum, dated January 4,	158
2022, at ¶ 8, attached as Ex. 33 to Pl.’s CSF in Opp., ECF No.
412-34
63
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 63 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

The Court assumes, without deciding, that Plaintiff Lum was
disabled within the meaning of the Americans With Disabilities
Act for purposes of this Motion.
B. Qualified Individual
To determine if an individual is a qualified individual for
a position, the Court examines if the individual satisfied the
requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related
requirements of the position. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).
The Court again assumes, without deciding, that despite his
medical condition, Plaintiff Lum was a qualified individual.
C. Undue Hardship
Even if Plaintiff could demonstrate that he was a qualified
individual, an employer is not required to accommodate an
employee if doing so will pose an undue hardship. Dark v. Curry
Cnty., 451 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir. 2006); see Townley Eng’g &
Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d at 615, n.7.
The record demonstrates that Plaintiff was granted an
accommodation in the form of a 12-month leave of absence. No
additional accommodation was required. Indefinite paid leave is
not a reasonable accommodation. Makor v. Burlington No. Santa Fe
Railway Co., 680 Fed. Appx. 542, 544 (9th Cir. 2017); Larson v.
United Natural Foods West, Inc., 518 Fed. Appx. 589, 591 (9th
64
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 64 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Cir. 2013) (citing Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir.
2003)).
As explained above, there are no disputes of material fact
that the Hawaiian Defendants could not have allowed Plaintiff to
fly their aircraft unvaccinated without undue hardship given the
health and safety costs, operational burdens, and financial
burdens on the Defendants. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10); Dark, 451
F.3d at 1088; Buss, 2026 WL 1256912, at *14-*15.
D. Direct Threat To Health And Safety
The record also demonstrates that allowing Plaintiff Lum to
fly unvaccinated would pose a “direct threat” to the safety of
others. 42 U.S.C. § 12113(b).
There is no liability under the ADA if an employer subjects
an employee to an adverse employment action because the
individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of other
individuals in the workplace. See Dark, 451 F.3d at 1091;
Gemmrig v. Asante Three Rivers Med. Ctr., LLC, 2025 WL 2555337,
*9 (D. Or. Sept. 5, 2025) (finding employer was entitled to
summary judgment where evidence demonstrated that an employee who
refused to be vaccinated for COVID-19 posed a direct threat to
health and safety of others); Echazabal, 336 F.3d at 1028;
Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 650.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count IV for
65
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 65 of 66
PageID.<pageID>

Failure to Accommodate Plaintiff Lum’s Disability (ECF No. 406)
is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and Hawaiian Holdings,
Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 406) is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I for
Failure to Accommodate Plaintiffs’ Religious Beliefs (ECF No.
406) is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count IV for
Failure to Accommodate Plaintiff Lum’s Disability (ECF No. 406)
is GRANTED.
There are no remaining claims or parties in this case.
The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to enter Judgment in favor of
Defendants Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and Hawaiian Holdings, Inc.
and to CLOSE THE CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2026, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Erwin Young, Puanani Badiang Sabrina Franks, Ronald Lum, v.
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Hawaiian Holdings, Inc., Civ. No. 22-
00532 HG-WRP; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.
AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF
No. 406) 66
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 422 Filed 05/20/26 Page 66 of 66
PageID.<pageID>