A Kansas law that gives employees and job applicants broad freedom to opt out of COVID-19 vaccine mandates on religious grounds has survived a legal challenge.

The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday sided with Katlin Keeran, whose job offer to work at a Johnson County rehabilitation center was rescinded after she refused to comply with a company policy requiring immunization.

In a 4-2 decision, the high court upheld a 2021 state law that prohibits employers from questioning the sincerity of deeply held religious or philosophical beliefs cited by prospective employees as their reason for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

Powerback Rehabilitation, which provides services at Town Village retirement community in Leawood, challenged the broad religious exemption by suing the Kansas Department of Labor.

Powerback argued that the Kansas law interfered with the company’s ability to comply with the federal vaccine mandate that was in effect at the time, which required health care providers receiving Medicare and Medicaid dollars to vaccinate their employees.

The Kansas law, called HB 2001, allows employees to submit a written waiver request, accompanied by a statement signed by the employee. Employers are then required to grant it and are prohibited from “inquiring into the sincerity of the request.”

The law only expands the religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine — not other immunizations that employers may require.

Johnson County District Court Judge David Hauber issued a ruling in January 2024 siding with Powerback, finding the Kansas Legislature had overstepped federal law in HB 2001.

But a majority of state Supreme Court justices disagreed.

“There is no dispute in this case that Powerback’s vaccination policy (including the available exemptions and process for receiving one) complied with federal law but violated Kansas law,” wrote Justice Caleb Stegall in the majority opinion.

“So, simply put, this case asks us to resolve the question — which law must Powerback follow? We hold the two regimes are not in conflict, thus Powerback must comply with both.”

Because the federal law contemplated employers questioning applicants on the sincerity of religious beliefs, Powerback argued that it could not also comply with a state law forbidding it from probing deeper into vaccine skeptics’ religious justification.

But, Stegell noted, federal law “does not require this inquiry into sincerity.”

“Thus, when a federal law permits, but does not require, action by a private party, there is generally room for the state to prohibit that action — in this case, inquiring into religious sincerity,” Stegall said.

In the dissent, Justice Melissa Standridge wrote that because the two laws conflict in their approach to handling religious exemptions, the federal law should take precedence.

“Under longstanding Supremacy Clause doctrine, state law must yield where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, or where state law frustrates Congress’ objectives,” Standridge said.

_____

©2025 The Kansas City Star. Visit kansascity.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.