- Nick Rolovich sued Washington State University for $25 million after being fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine due to Catholic beliefs.
- University officials rejected his religious exemption, citing concerns about institutional reputation and donor backlash.
- The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting Rolovich’s Title VII religious freedom claim in the 9th Circuit.
- A federal judge dismissed Rolovich’s case, calling his objections “primarily secular,” but his team argues this ignores a university panel’s findings of sincere faith.
- Internal communications reveal WSU leadership dismissed Rolovich’s beliefs as “cult-like” and prioritized brand image over religious accommodation.
In 2021, Nick Rolovich, the Catholic head football coach at Washington State University (WSU), found himself at the center of a legal and ethical storm after refusing the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Faced with a choice between compromising his faith or risking his career, Rolovich chose the latter. His decision sparked a $25 million wrongful termination lawsuit and a high-stakes legal battle that has drawn the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). At stake is a fundamental question: Can government institutions override an individual's religious convictions in the name of public health?
Rolovich's story begins with a simple yet profound act of faith. A devout Catholic, he objected to the vaccine on religious grounds, citing his beliefs about the use of aborted fetal cell lines in its development. In December 2021, after Washington State's governor narrowed the available exemptions to medical or religious only — eliminating the personal exemption Rolovich had initially sought — Rolovich applied for a religious exemption. A university review committee deemed his objections sincere. But WSU leadership, led by Athletic Director Pat Chun, rejected the exemption and fired him, citing concerns about "brand" damage and donor backlash.
University committee finds sincere beliefs, leadership ignores them
WSU's own blind review panel, tasked with evaluating Rolovich's exemption request, concluded his faith-based objections were genuine. The record supporting his case included 54 exhibits, among them communications with priests and bishops, as well as Rolovich's personal reflections on his faith. Yet university officials overruled the panel's recommendation. Chun told Human Resources the athletic department would not agree to proposed accommodations and publicly stated on the day of the firing that exemption requests had been denied because it was "really simple." Rolovich's contract allowed termination without cause, but he claims the university failed to pay him approximately $3.6 million in liquidated damages as required.
DOJ files amicus brief in support of coach's religious freedom
The DOJ's involvement in Rolovich's case marks a significant show of support for religious liberty. In June 2025, the agency filed an amicus brief urging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Rolovich's Title VII claim. The brief argues that WSU's refusal to accommodate his faith-based exemption violated federal law.
"This case matters not just for Coach Rolovich, but for every American who wants to live out his faith at work," said Luke Goodrich, Rolovich's attorney at Becket Law. The DOJ's stance underscores a broader concern: when institutions prioritize mandates over conscience, who protects the rights of the individual?
Legal battle moves to 9th Circuit as coach seeks trial
In 2025, a federal district court ruled against Rolovich, dismissing his claims. The judge concluded Rolovich's objections were "primarily secular" and that his refusal to vaccinate would impose "undue hardship" on WSU. Rolovich's team argues this decision ignores the panel's findings and the DOJ's amicus brief. Now before the 9th Circuit, the case could set a precedent for how religious exemptions are treated under Title VII.
Adding fuel to the debate, Rolovich's legal team presented a report from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, now director of the NIH, which argued there was no good public health case for terminating employees with sincere religious or medical objections to the vaccine. The report cited a 99.7% survival rate and noted that vaccinated individuals were at least as likely as unvaccinated ones to shed live virus. Despite this, WSU denied Rolovich's appeal. Notably, the university approved 97% of the religious exemption requests it received from other employees, undermining its claim that accommodating Rolovich would have caused undue hardship.
WSU has called Rolovich's lawsuit "wholly without merit," insisting the mandate was enforced "in a fair and lawful manner." However, internal emails reveal a different story. WSU Chair Marty Dickinson called Rolovich a "brand" liability, while Athletic Director Chun dismissed his beliefs as akin to those of "cults." The university's "Rolo strategy," as described in internal communications, aimed to preemptively deny his exemption to avoid negative media attention.
A test for the Constitution's First Amendment
Rolovich's case is part of a national wave of litigation challenging vaccine mandates, with over 8,300 lawsuits filed nationwide. The DOJ's support signals a federal priority shift toward protecting religious freedom in the workplace. Becket attorney Joseph Davis argued that WSU's action "betrays the spirit of college athletics and religious freedom." If the 9th Circuit rules in Rolovich's favor, it could redefine how public employers handle religious exemptions and send a clear message that institutional convenience is no excuse for targeting an employee's faith.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.