Jehovah's Witness scores win in fight over California loyalty oath

(CN) — Brianna Bolden-Hardge lost a job opportunity when she refused to pledge “true faith and allegiance” to the California and U.S. constitutions.

On Friday, a federal judge ruled California state officials had wrongly failed to accommodate her religious objections.

“The undisputed evidence shows that defendants would not have experienced an undue hardship if plaintiff had been allowed to attach the proposed addendum and sign the oath, as she requested,” U.S. District Judge John Mendez, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in a 25-page opinion.

Bolden-Hardge joined the California Franchise Tax Board in 2011. She accepted a job offer from the state controller’s office in 2017.

Before starting, she was asked to sign an oath as required for public employees by the California Constitution. The oath asks employees to pledge they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies.”

Citing her faith as a Jehovah’s Witness, Bolden-Hardge refused to sign the oath without an addendum clarifying she was not denouncing her religion, nor agreeing to bear arms or engage in violence.

After the office rejected her proposed addendum and rescinded her job offer, Bolden-Hardge in 2020 sued the Office of the California State Controller and seven of its employees on a number of grounds, including violating her free-exercise rights under the U.S. and state constitutions.

Mendez originally dismissed Bolden-Hardge’s claims in 2021, but the Ninth Circuit revived them in 2023, finding she had adequately stated claims for damages.

Back before Mendez, Bolden-Hardge found success on her claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“The court finds that there is no genuine dispute that plaintiff’s religious beliefs conflict with the ‘true faith and allegiance’ provision,” Mendez wrote.

State officials argued that Bolden-Hardge didn’t hold an “honest conviction” because she had worked in state government for six years prior without renouncing her religion. They noted she signed an oath without accommodation in 2011.

Mendez wasn’t convinced. “This evidence does not demonstrate that plaintiff’s conviction was dishonest,” he wrote. He explained that Holden-Barge had in fact expressed concerns back then as well — but she was rushed to “get the paperwork done” in a room with 20 other new employees.

Officials argued that because the oath didn’t state “primary” allegiance to the constitutions over her religion, there wasn’t a conflict between her religious beliefs and the oath.

“However, these arguments would require the court to consider whether it was reasonable for plaintiff to believe that there was a conflict between her religion and the oath,” Mendez wrote, batting down this argument as well. He said that both Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent hold that a court can’t “second-guess the reasonableness of plaintiff’s alleged conflict.”

Mendez also didn’t buy the state’s argument that it couldn’t reasonably accommodate Bolden-Hardge without undue hardship. As Mendez put it, “nothing in the proposed addendum would undermine the public’s expectation that she would follow the law.”

Similarly, Mendez rejected the state’s argument that it would suffer hardship if it allowed employees to write their own oath. He said Bolden-Hardge’s proposed addendum “only seeks to clarify the oath’s meaning."

Representatives for Bolden-Hardge and the state controller’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment before press time.