Ronald Hittle was fired as Stockton, California’s fire chief after facing misconduct allegations, including an anonymous letter that labeled him a “corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic.”

One factor behind his dismissal was his attendance, along with other managers, at a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders during work hours.

Hittle attempted to sue, arguing that he was terminated because of his Christian faith, but lower courts ruled that his case wasn’t strong enough to proceed to trial. Hittle maintains that the Supreme Court’s standard for evaluating workplace discrimination claims—a test established over 50 years ago—warrants reexamination.

But this week, the Supreme Court declined to hear his case, sidestepping a potential showdown over workplace religious discrimination at a time when the Court is also scrutinizing issues related to religion in schools and religion-based tax exemptions.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have accepted the appeal. Thomas noted that Hittle presented ample evidence of discriminatory intent, and that his case could have provided clear guidance on when workplace discrimination claims should proceed, the outlet reported.

Hittle was terminated in 2011 after a city investigation found that he lacked effectiveness and judgment, failed to report time off, engaged in favoritism, and attended a religious event with other managers while on the job, among other issues.

The event—a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders—was something Hittle attended at the city’s direction for leadership training, USA Today noted.

Hittle contends that his attendance at the Global Leadership Summit was the main reason for his dismissal, alleging that the deputy city manager accused him of being part of a “Christian Coalition.”

“When an employer acts for a discriminatory reason, it cannot automatically avoid liability just because lawful reasons also motivated it,” his attorneys stated before the Court during oral arguments.

The city contends that Hittle is misrepresenting the appeals court’s ruling and sees no justification for revisiting the landmark 1973 decision in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, a “settled touchstone of employment-discrimination law.”

“The City’s reasons for terminating (Hittle) were well-documented and entirely appropriate for the Ninth Circuit to rely upon,” the city’s lawyers told the court, per USA Today.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear an appeal challenging Delaware’s ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as a case regarding Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements.

By doing so, the Court avoided addressing two significant cases involving the contentious issue of gun rights.

The justices turned away an appeal from a group of gun enthusiasts and firearm advocacy organizations, who sought to block Delaware’s ban on “assault weapons” and magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds, following a lower court’s decision not to issue a preliminary injunction.

The outlet also noted that such weapons have been used in several mass shootings in the U.S., but according to FBI crime statistics, the vast majority of gun-related homicides are committed with handguns.

The justices also declined to hear an appeal from the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue and other plaintiffs, who were challenging a lower court’s ruling that upheld the state’s licensing law as consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear weapons.

While the justices declined to hear these two cases, the court did not take action on two separate appeals challenging Maryland’s ban on assault weapons and one in Rhode Island regarding large-capacity ammunition magazines.

With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has consistently adopted an originalist interpretation of gun rights in significant rulings dating back to 2008.

Delaware’s gun safety laws, enacted in 2022, ban several semi-automatic “assault” rifles, including the AR-15 and AK-47, but allow individuals who owned these weapons before the law’s passage to retain them under specific conditions. The law also prohibits large-capacity magazines, affecting devices owned before its enactment.

The challengers in the case include state residents attempting to purchase the banned firearms or magazines, a firearms dealer, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.