> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.hermosareview.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Appeals court sides with Hermosa Beach in fired officer's COVID vaccine case - URL: https://www.hermosareview.com/appeals-court-sides-with-hermosa-beach-in-fired-officers-covid-vaccine-case/ - Published: 2026-10-22T05:58:03.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-22T05:58:03.000Z - Description: Appeals court reaches verdict in long-running case over former HbPD officer Jonathan Cruz's dismissal after refusing the COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic. - Author: Hermosa Review - Tags: City Hall A California appeals court has upheld Hermosa Beach's decision to fire police officer Jonathan Cruz after he refused the COVID-19 vaccine, ruling that the city did not owe him the special appeal rights state law gives officers who are disciplined. The Oct. 15 decision in *Cruz v. City of Hermosa Beach* turns on one distinction: being fired as punishment versus losing a job for not meeting a requirement of it. The court said Cruz's case was the latter. Because the vaccine rule applied to every city employee, the court treated it as a condition of holding the job, not a penalty for anything Cruz did wrong. Cruz had worked for the Hermosa Beach Police Department since 2009\. He asked for a religious exemption in October 2021\. The city turned him down, and when he did not show proof of vaccination by the deadline, it ended his employment on March 9, 2022. The ruling reaches beyond Hermosa Beach. The court published the key part of its opinion, which means courts across California can rely on it in similar cases. The parts dealing with Cruz's retaliation claims are unpublished and apply only to this case. Cruz told The Hermosa Review that he has not decided whether to take the case to the California Supreme Court, and that cost is the obstacle. "If I can somehow, some way come up with the money to give to my attorney to go ahead and pursue that appeal at the California Supreme Court, I will do so," he said. ## Why the officers' bill of rights didn't apply California's Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, usually called POBRA, is a 1976 law that sets ground rules for how police agencies investigate and discipline officers. Among other things, it guarantees an officer the chance to appeal when an agency takes "punitive action," such as a firing, demotion, suspension or pay cut. Cruz argued that any firing counts as punitive action. He pointed to a 1982 California Supreme Court case, *White v. County of Sacramento*, which said firings and demotions are penalties whatever the reason behind them. The appeals court said that reading went too far. The *White* decision itself noted it was not addressing situations such as budget layoffs, and "not all employment terminations are dismissals for purposes of POBRA," the panel wrote. Because the law does not define "punitive action," the court looked at what the Legislature meant when it passed it. That history showed the law was written to protect officers under investigation and facing discipline. Earlier state Supreme Court rulings also say POBRA was not meant to control the qualifications agencies set for employing officers. Applying that to Cruz, the court found no accusation of misconduct and no complaint about his work. The city let him go because he no longer met a minimum requirement that applied to everyone, which the court held falls outside POBRA. ## What the ruling does not decide The court was careful to limit its decision. Cruz's state lawsuit did not claim the city broke the law or discriminated against him when it rejected his religious exemption, and the court said it was expressing no opinion on that question. Cruz is currently pursuing a separate federal case appeal concerning the possible infringement of his religious exemption. The state ruling also does not weigh in on whether the vaccine policy was wise. It decides which set of rules governed how Cruz was let go. ## The questions no court has answered At the heart of Cruz's dispute are two judgments the city made in January 2022: that his religious objection was not sincere, and that accommodating him would be an undue hardship. Neither has been tested on its merits in court. **Sincerity.** The opinion says the city manager and human resources manager reviewed Cruz's request and met with him on Nov. 22, 2021, as part of what the policy called an "interactive process." It does not describe Cruz's beliefs, what he was asked, or how the city concluded they were not sincere. Courts and regulators have long been wary of employers second-guessing faith. Employers may not judge whether a belief is true or correct, only whether it is religious rather than political, medical or personal, and whether it is sincerely held. Federal guidance issued in October 2021, weeks after Hermosa Beach adopted its policy, told employers to assume a religious accommodation request is sincere "unless the employer has an objective basis for questioning" it, and even then to limit their inquiry. The same guidance says objections based on social, political or personal views, or on concerns about a vaccine's safety, are not religious. A crowdfunding page created on Cruz's behalf says he attends church every Sunday, and he fiercely maintains the strength of his religious belief. **Undue hardship.** The opinion does not say what hardship the city believed it would suffer by keeping Cruz on the job unvaccinated. The city's policy cited the risk that unvaccinated employees would contract and spread the virus in city facilities and to the public. The legal bar for that defense has since risen. In June 2023, in *Groff v. DeJoy*, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer must show an accommodation "would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business," rejecting the looser standard many employers had relied on. That decision came more than a year after Cruz was fired, and how it applies to mandate-era denials is being argued in courts across the country. Cruz points out that he worked through the pandemic, before vaccines were available and during the months the city let unvaccinated employees keep working with weekly tests. His attorney in the federal case argues that the city was, in effect, accommodating unvaccinated employees until the deadline. ## Decided without a trial Cruz never had a trial. The city won what is called summary judgment, a ruling a judge makes before trial when the judge concludes there is no real factual dispute for a jury to resolve. There was no jury, no live witnesses and no cross-examination on the stand. The judge decided the case on written evidence: documents, sworn declarations and deposition transcripts. The question was whether, viewing that evidence in Cruz's favor, any of his claims raised a "triable issue" worth sending to trial. Superior Court Judge Douglas W. Stern concluded none did. Cruz's federal attorney Jennifer Kennedy says that is what readers should understand about the case: one judge decided Cruz's claims were not strong enough for a jury to hear. Two points complicate that picture. Whether POBRA applied to his firing is a question of how to read a statute, which judges decide even when a case goes to trial. And on appeal, three justices reviewed the record again from scratch, and they reached the same result. ## Was he fired for complaining? Cruz also claimed the city fired him in retaliation for filing complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the state's civil rights agency, then called the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The dates did not support that, the court found. The city began the process of separating Cruz on Feb. 22, 2022, and put him on paid leave that day. It learned of his complaints about three days later. California law also lets an employer defeat a whistleblower claim by proving it would have made the same decision anyway. The court said the city met that test: it rejected Cruz's exemption in January, set a Feb. 19 deadline, and acted when he missed it. The city had given two reasons for rejecting the exemption: that Cruz's request was not based on a sincerely held religious belief, and, as a fallback, that accommodating him would cause the city undue hardship. Cruz argued there was no evidence of any hardship. The court said that did not matter for the retaliation claim, because the city's first reason was enough to show it had a legitimate, independent basis for the decision. That finding was narrow. To win on retaliation, Cruz needed evidence that the city's stated reason was a cover, such as evidence the city actually believed he qualified for an exemption. The court found he offered none. It did not decide whether his beliefs were sincere or whether the city judged them correctly. The court also rejected his claim that refusing him an administrative appeal was itself retaliation. He was not entitled to that appeal, and the city denied it in April 2022, after he no longer worked there. The city can recover its costs for the appeal, except on the state civil rights claim, where the law limits cost awards against employees who lose unless their case was frivolous. ## Cruz: "The one thing you cannot appeal" In an interview with *The Hermosa Review*, Cruz says the ruling creates a carve-out he considers unfair. An officer fired for almost any reason can still appeal, he said, but not one fired over a vaccine mandate. "If he kicked an animal and killed it, or if he used the wrong pen and paper, or if he said a bad word to a person in the field, and any of those things lead to a termination, the officer could appeal all those things," Cruz said. "But if the officer opposes a vaccine mandate, that's the one thing out of all of the things in the world that now you cannot appeal against." He rejected the court's distinction between discipline and a job qualification. "You're going to tell me that by firing someone, that wasn't a disciplinary action? That's bogus," he said. Cruz said the published ruling means that "if a police officer ever gets fired for not obeying a vaccine mandate, he will be fired and there's nothing he can do about it because of my case." That, more than his own job, is why he wants to keep going, he said. "The average police officer that is in the field that's new to the profession and this happens to them, I don't feel that it's fair to that person to be ousted in the way that I was." ### The hearing he says he would have lost Cruz was candid that a hearing likely would not have saved his job. In 2022, he said, a civil service board "would have ruled in their favor, 100 percent," given broad public support for vaccine requirements at the time. "And it would have been absolutely over." His complaint is that he never got one. He pointed to the Los Angeles Police Department, which he said gave officers fired over the vaccine a Board of Rights hearing before their terminations were upheld. "I'm probably the only police officer in the entire state of California that did not get the civil service hearing," he said. The court record shows the city did hold a pre-separation conference on March 1, 2022, which Cruz attended with a lawyer. What it denied was a hearing after his termination before the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. ### What he offered the city Cruz said he made his case directly to then-City Manager Suja Lowenthal about a week before he was fired. He offered to keep testing weekly and pay for the tests himself, and to wear gloves, a mask and goggles for his entire shift. "How is that a burden?" he said he asked. He said Lowenthal replied, "Noted." A week later, he was terminated. The city's January 2022 denial found that accommodating Cruz would cause undue hardship, but that was its fallback reason. Its main finding was that his request was not based on a sincerely held religious belief. Cruz disputes that. "I filed a complaint for religious discrimination, which I feel strongly about to this day," he said. ### The federal case Cruz's religious discrimination claims were heard in a separate federal lawsuit, which a judge dismissed in June 2025\. Cruz said he has appealed that dismissal, with attorney Jennifer Kennedy now representing him. He argued that the state court's footnote, saying it expressed no opinion on whether the exemption denial was lawful, undercuts the city's position that the two cases cover the same ground. Cruz said Kennedy has raised that point with the federal court. #### How the Cruz case unfolded (click to view) - ****Aug. 2021:** The City Council directs staff to draft a policy requiring employees to be vaccinated or tested weekly. The city reports 77 percent of its 161 employees are fully vaccinated. - ****Sept. 28, 2021:** The council adopts a vaccination requirement for officials, staff, contractors and certain volunteers, with a Nov. 12 deadline and weekly testing until then. Medical and religious exemptions are available through an "interactive process." - ****Oct. 1, 2021:** Cruz requests a religious exemption. - ****Nov. 22, 2021:** The city manager and human resources manager meet with Cruz. - ****Jan. 5, 2022:** The city denies the request, finding it was not based on a sincerely held religious belief and, alternatively, that accommodating it would be an undue hardship. Deadline for proof of vaccination: Feb. 19. - ****Feb. 1, 2022:** Cruz asks for a delay. Human resources declines. - ****Feb. 22, 2022:** The city issues a Notice of Forfeiture of Employment and places Cruz on paid leave, describing the separation as non-disciplinary. - ****About Feb. 25, 2022:** The city learns of Cruz's EEOC and DFEH complaint. - ****March 1, 2022:** Cruz, with counsel, attends a pre-separation conference. - ****March 9, 2022:** The city terminates Cruz. - ****April 14, 2022:** The city denies his request for an administrative appeal. - ****Oct. 21, 2022:** Cruz sues in Los Angeles County Superior Court. - ****Sept. 17, 2024:** Judge Douglas W. Stern grants the city summary judgment on all claims. Judgment is entered Oct. 9. - ****June 18, 2025:** A federal judge dismisses Cruz's separate discrimination suit in the Central District of California. - ****Oct. 15, 2026:** The Court of Appeal affirms. ## The council vote behind the mandate The policy at the center of the case passed on a 3-2 vote. Councilmembers Mike Detoy and Ray Jackson voted no. Both remain on the council today; Detoy is now mayor. Detoy, a Los Angeles County firefighter, told colleagues he had a very bad reaction to his own vaccination, which he received after contracting COVID at work, *Easy Reader* reported. Jackson said he supported requiring employees to be vaccinated but opposed extending the requirement to volunteers. Cruz said he later confronted Detoy, telling him it was "hypocritical" to enjoy autonomy over his own medical choices as a county firefighter without securing the same for city employees. Then-Mayor Justin Massey said in a city press release that Hermosa Beach was joining local governments and businesses across the region in doing everything it reasonably could to beat the pandemic. The city said it had modified the policy after meet-and-confer talks with employee unions and that 78 percent of its 161 employees were already fully vaccinated. The policy's stated purpose, quoted in the opinion, was to protect staff and the public, noting that unvaccinated individuals were at greater risk of contracting and spreading the virus in city facilities. ## Fallout at HBPD Cruz was not alone. In a Feb. 24, 2022, Facebook post, the Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association said Detective Wayne Lewis, a 21-year department veteran, and Cruz had been placed on administrative leave after the city refused their religious exemption requests, and that four other officers faced separation for the same reason, Easy Reader reported. The association described a 39-member department at the time. Then-City Manager Suja Lowenthal said in a statement that no employees had yet separated from the city for failing to get vaccinated. She pointed to recent hiring and a $40,000 signing bonus the city was offering lateral transfers. According to the opinion, Cruz wrote to the mayor in April 2022 alleging violations by the city manager. A crowdfunding page created in December 2023 on Cruz's behalf describes him as a retired Marine Corps master sergeant who served multiple combat tours. The page says he has been unable to get hired by other agencies since his termination and has turned to side work to support his wife and three children. ## The wider picture COVID vaccine mandates for public employees produced a wave of lawsuits across California, many brought by police officers and many centered on religious exemptions. Most of the mandates have since been lifted. Long Beach, San Diego and Pasadena phased theirs out in 2023, as did Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Unified School District. The City of Los Angeles ended its requirement in June 2024 and created a path for about 86 workers who left or were fired to reapply. Hermosa Beach held on longer. Cruz said the city did not drop its requirement until June 2025, well after the county and neighboring cities. The published portion of the Cruz ruling gives public agencies an appellate holding that firings for failing a uniform vaccine requirement fall outside POBRA. That matters for agencies still defending mandate-era terminations, because officers who cannot claim POBRA's procedural protections lose one avenue for challenging how they were let go. The ruling does not resolve whether any particular religious exemption denial was lawful. ## What's next Cruz can ask the Court of Appeal to rehear the case or petition the California Supreme Court for review. He said the decision is "up in the air" and depends on raising the fee, which he guessed could be around $25,000\. Under the state rules of court, a review petition is due within 10 days after the decision becomes final, which is 30 days after filing. His federal appeal, Cruz said, is pending.