Qualified Immunity Protects Defendants Who Denied Religious Exemptions From COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (D CO, Sept. 29, 2022), a Colorado federal district court dismissed a number of claims by current and former students and employees of the University of Colorado who were denied religious exemptions from the University's COVID vaccine mandate. Some of the claims were dismissed on mootness and sovereign immunity grounds. Other claims were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, with the court saying in part:

Given the unprecedented nature and global scope of the Covid-19 pandemic as well as its devastating impacts, the Court finds the allegations in the Complaint do not establish that these Defendants acted unreasonably in light of existing precedent and in the specific context of this case. Therefore, at a minimum, they did not violate Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

City Employees Did Not Show Sincere Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (ND CA, Sept. 23, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by two city employees who objected on religious grounds to the city's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Neither Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. There are no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines contain fetal cells or are otherwise derived from murdered babies.... Feeling passionately about something or having a specific personal preference does not merit the status of a sincere religious belief....

The court denied a preliminary injunction under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Law, also concluding: 

It is well-settled law that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm for purposes of an injunction....

Police and Fire Fighters Sue Over COVID Vaccine Mandate

Suit was filed last week in a New Jersey federal district court by a group of seven police officers and firefighters who were denied a religious accommodation to excuse them from a COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) in Aliano v. Township of Maplewood, (D NY, filed 9/16/2022), contends that the denial violates Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. New Jersey 101.5 reports on the lawsuit.

Musicians Sue Over Denial Of Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate

A Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court by three musicians who have religious objections to COVID vaccines. They were placed on partial-paid leave by their private employer, an arts organization that operates the Naples Philharmonic, when they refused to comply with the employer's vaccine mandate.  The complaint (full text) in Leigh v. Artis-Naples, Inc., (MD FL, filed 9/21/2022), alleges in part:

Artis-Naples implemented an illegal policy that no exemption or accommodation would or could be granted to any employee who had to be present onsite to perform their job....

Artis-Naples irrationally and pretextually argues that accommodating unvaccinated employees who follow alternative preventative measures would place an “undue hardship” on its operations—specifically, that unvaccinated employees present “a direct threat” of infection to patrons and coworkers....

Florida law requires Artis-Naples to exempt Plaintiffs from the Mandate....

As a matter of law, it can never be an “undue hardship” for an employer to comply with the state law and public policy.

Employees Fired For Religious Refusal Of COVID Vaccine Bring Title VII Suit

Four former employees of a continuing care retirement community filed suit in an Alabama federal district court last week claiming that they were wrongly fired for refusing the COVID vaccine on religious grounds.  The 105-page complaint (full text) in Hamil v. Acts Retirement-Life Communities, Inc., (SD AL, filed 9/15/2002), contends that plaintiffs were subjected to a hostile work environment, harassment, and wrongful termination based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. They were denied religious exemptions, or had previously granted religious exemptions rescinded. According to the complaint:

Such conduct was undertaken to preserve Defendants' exorbitant sums of monetary assistance in the form of government grants, coronavirus relief funds, and Medicare and Medicaid funds....

In the case at hand, the crux of the issue is the unlawful employment practices undertaken by Defendant and not the constitutional validity of any vaccine mandate....

The complaint contains lengthy descriptions of plaintiffs' religious beliefs and alleges various violations of Title VII as well as numerous state law claims. 1819News reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Refuses To Stay Class-Wide Injunction Against Air Force Enforcing Vaccine Mandate Against Religious Objectors

In Doster v. Kendall, (6th Cir., Sept. 9, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant an emergency stay of a class-wide injunction that was issued by an Ohio federal district court in a suit by Air Force and Space Force members who object on religious grounds to receiving the COVID vaccine. The district court enjoined the military from taking enforcement measures, while litigation is pending, against service members who have submitted confirmed requests for a religious accommodation from the military's vaccine mandate. The 6th Circuit said in part:

[T]he Department challenges only the merits of the district court’s decision to certify the class—the Department’s position being that, even if the named plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their individual claims, the court’s certification of the class was an abuse of discretion, and thus so too was the court’s issuance of a class-wide preliminary injunction....

The Department ... argues that RFRA claims categorically cannot be certified for class treatment. Here, for example, it says that the plaintiffs’ RFRA claim requires the court to determine separately for each service member whether the vaccination mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. We agree that most RFRA claims require that kind of individualized analysis; and we have no quarrel with the Department’s contention that such an analysis could not be conducted class-wide here. But the Department’s argument misconceives the nature of the RFRA claim that the district court certified. The court’s order emphasized on almost every page that the RFRA claim it certified was one based on a class-wide “clear policy of discrimination against religious accommodation requests.” ... That claim ... does not turn on an analysis of the class members’ individual circumstances and likely can be adjudicated class-wide.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

 In Bush v. Fantasia, (D MA, Sept. 12, 2022), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed claims that a COVID mask mandate imposed by a town Board of Health and a public library violated plaintiffs free exercise rights. Plaintiffs claimed that they "have sincerely held religious beliefs that proscribe our wearing face masks and/or submitting to coerced medical devices/products such as face masks." The court said in part:

Plaintiffs do not identify a religious practice or explain the coercive effect the mask mandates had on that practice. A mere vague allegation that mask mandates violate their religion is not enough to survive even the most a generous pleading standard....

Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a burden on their exercise of religion, their claims would still fall. The mask mandates were facially neutral and generally applicable, i.e., they did not single out, or make any reference to, a religion or any religious practice and applied equally to all....

The court also rejected equal protection, due process and a number of other challenges. 

7th Circuit: Plaintiffs Failed To Show Facts Supporting Free Exercise Objections To COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Lukaszczyk v. Cook County, (7th Cir., Aug. 29, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling on three separate district court cases, refused to order preliminary injunctions against local and state COVID vaccine mandates.  The court said in part:

The plaintiffs argue the mandates violate their constitutional rights to substantive due process, procedural due process, and the free exercise of religion. They also contend the mandates violate Illinois state law. Although the plaintiffs could have presented some forceful legal arguments, they have failed to develop factual records to support their claims. Because the plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, we affirm the decisions of the district judges....

Discussing plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, the court said in part: 

[I]f these assertions have merit, there is no record evidence to support them. The plaintiffs should have gathered facts and created a record detailing any wrongful denials of requests for religious exemptions. Instead, they made a facial challenge, which ignored the text of the policy’s religious exemption and the status of the plaintiffs’ exemption requests. This does not show a violation of their right to freely exercise their religions.

NYC Vaccine Mandate Upheld

In Kane v. DeBlasio, (SD NY, Aug. 26, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected a challenge by New York City teachers, administrators and staff to New York City's public employee COVID vaccine mandate. They claimed the mandate violates their 1st and 14th amendment rights.  Discussing plaintiffs' free exercise claim, the court said in part:

The Second Circuit has already found that “[t]he Vaccine Mandate, in all its iterations, is neutral and generally applicable.”...

Ignoring the fact that the pandemic has claimed the lives of more than a million people in the United States, plaintiffs take the bold position that the Mandate has the “express purpose of inflicting special disability against minority religious viewpoints,” ... rather than its obvious and explicit goals to ... “potentially save lives, protect public health, and promote public safety.”...

Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Vaccine Mandate is not generally applicable again rely on arguments that the Second Circuit already rejected. 

Marine Corps Enjoined From Discharging Religious Objectors To COVID Vaccination

In Colonel Financial Management Officer v. Austin, (MD FL, Aug. 18, 2022), a Florida federal district court certified as a class all Marines who have a sincere religious objection to COVID vaccination and whose request for a religious accommodation has been (or will  be) denied on appeal. According to the court:

The Marine Corps has granted only eleven accommodations, less than three-tenths of a percent (0.295%) of the 3,733 applications. The record presents no successful applicant other than a few who are due for retirement and prompt separation.

The court found "a systemic failure by the Marine Corps to satisfy RFRA." It said in part:

Notwithstanding a chaplain's affirmation, the Marine Corps rejects as insubstantial any religious objection grounded in the vaccine's connection to aborted fetal tissue because "fetal stem cells are neither used in the manufacture of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine nor are they present in the vaccine itself." This "finding," a unilateral lay declaration about a much discussed and much-debated topic, says nothing about the use of aborted fetal cells in the development of the vaccine and this finding says nothing about (and can say nothing about) the theological consequences of that use or about either moral or factual uncertainty. The "finding" says nothing about the religious concepts of, for example, accepting a personal benefit from evil, assisting someone in profiting from evil, cooperating in evil, appropriation of evil, de-sensitization to evil, moral contamination by intimacy with evil, ratification of evil, complicity with evil, or other considerations undoubtedly familiar to a theologian and likely familiar to a thoughtful and religious lay person who has contemplated evil.

The court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the vaccine mandate against class members, or discharge or harassment of them.

Religious Objections To Air Force COVID Mandate Dismissed For Lack of Standing and Ripeness

In Miller v. Austin, (D WY, Aug. 22, 2022), a Wyoming federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a suit by two Air Force sergeants who face discharge because of their refusal on religious grounds to receive the COVID vaccine.  The court said in part:

Defendants correctly point out "Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to avoid the possibility of involuntary separation."... Furthermore, due to the pending class action, Defendants confirmed Miller's August 25, 2022 separation hearing has been paused.... There is no current threat of separation. Plaintiffs have not yet suffered a concrete, particularized, actual injury in fact because Plaintiffs have not been separated from the USAF. Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this issue.

More damning to Plaintiffs' case, however, is the fact that the religious exemption is still subject to administrative review within the USAF.

Maine's COVID Vaccine Mandate, Without Religious Exemption, Is Upheld

 In Lowe v. Mills, (D ME, Aug. 18, 2022), a Maine federal district court rejected challenges by seven healthcare workers to Maine's COVID vaccination requirement for healthcare workers. No religious exemption is available; medical exemptions are available. The court rejected plaintiffs Title VII religious discrimination claim, saying in part:

[I]f the Hospital Defendants had granted the sole accommodation sought by the Plaintiffs, it would result in an undue hardship by subjecting the Hospital Defendants to the imposition of a fine and the “immediat[e] suspension of a license.”

The court also rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment Free Exercise claims, saying in part:

In the context of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the medical exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine’s core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health—for example, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination requirements—to the same extent that it burdens religious beliefs. Thus, the medical exemption available as to all mandatory vaccines required by Maine law does not reflect a value judgment unfairly favoring secular interests over religious interests. As an integral part of the vaccine requirement itself, the medical exemption for healthcare workers does not undermine the vaccine mandate’s general applicability.

Court Reverses Sanctions Imposed On Church For Violating COVID Orders

In People v. Calvary Chapel, San Jose, (CA App., Aug. 15, 2022), a California state appellate court annulled contempt orders imposed by trial courts and reversed trial court imposition of monetary sanctions which resulted from a church's refusal to comply with state COVID public health orders. The order restricted the holding and conduct of public gatherings. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice (see, e.g., Tandon v. Newsom (2021) ....) As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision and reporting that Santa Clara County is still attempting to enforce $2.8 million in fines imposed for violation of county health orders.

Wisconsin Violated Archdiocese Rights In Excluding Clergy As COVID Precaution After Other Outsiders Were Allowed In

 As previously reported, last June a Wisconsin trial court issued a Provisional Writ of Mandamus ordering the Wisconsin prison system to allow Catholic clergy the opportunity, at least once a week, to conduct in-person religious services in state correctional institutions. Access for clergy is mandated by Wis. Stat. 301.33(1). The state had suspended visits beginning in March 2020 to minimize the spread of COVID.  Now, in Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, (WI Cir. Ct., July 14, 2022), the same court issued a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, concluding that once the prison system allowed some external visitors to enter correctional institutions, it was required to honor the clergy's statutory privilege to do so, and refusal to do so violated plaintiff's free exercise rights under the Wisconsin Constitution. CBN News reports on the decision.

Class Action Settlement Reached In Religious Challenge To Vaccine Mandate

 A 24-page class action Settlement Agreement (full text) was filed last week in an Illinois federal district court in Doe 1 v. NorthShore University HealthSystem, (ND IL, filed 7/292/2022).  The suit was brought on behalf of approximately 523 employees who requested, but were denied, a religious exemption or accommodation from the hospital system's COVID vaccination mandate. If the settlement is approved by the court, the hospital system will pay $10,330,500 in damages. Most former employees will receive $25,000 each.  $2,061,500 of the settlement amount will go to plaintiffs' counsel. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the settlement and National Catholic Register reported on the settlement agreement.

National Class Action and TRO Approved For Air Force Members With Religious Objections To COVID Vaccine

In Doster v. Kendall, (SD OH, July 14, 2022), an Ohio federal district court certified a national class action on behalf of all active duty and active reserve members of the Air Force and Space Force who have submitted a request for a religious accommodation from the military's COVID vaccine requirement since September 1, 2021, who were confirmed as having had a sincerely held religious belief by Air Force Chaplains, and have had their request denied or have not had action on it. The court went on to issue a 14-day temporary restraining order against enforcing the vaccine mandate against any class member. According to the court

As of June 6, 2022, the Air Force had received 9,062 religious accommodation requests, granting 86 of those requests while denying 6,343 requests....  Following such denials, the Air Force had received 3,837 appeals from Airmen whose initial religious accommodation requests were denied.... As of June 6, 2022, the Air Force has granted only 23 of those appeals, denying 2,978....

Fox19 reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On July 27, the court issued a class-wide preliminary injunction. (Full text of order.) Fox19 reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In New York Vaccine Mandate Case

Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Dr. A v. Hochul, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied 6/30/2022). This is another of the many cases that contend COVID vaccine mandates-- this time for New York healthcare workers-- with medical, but without religious, exemptions violate the Free Exercise clause. Justice Thomas, in an opinion joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, dissented from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

[T]here remains considerable confusion over whether a mandate, like New York’s, that does not exempt religious conduct can ever be neutral and generally applicable if it exempts secular conduct that similarly frustrates the specific interest that the mandate serves. Three Courts of Appeals and one State Supreme Court agree that such requirements are not neutral or generally applicable and therefore trigger strict scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Second Circuit has joined three other Courts of Appeals refusing to apply strict scrutiny. This split is widespread, entrenched, and worth addressing.

This case is an obvious vehicle for resolving that conflict.

The Supreme Court last December, by the same 6-3 vote, had denied an injunction pending the Supreme Court's review of the certiorari petition. (See prior posting.)

7th Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction To Doctor Fired For Refusing Vaccine

In Halczenko v. Ascension Health, Inc., (7th Cir., June 23, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to a pediatric critical care specialist who was fired from his hospital position after he refused, on religious grounds, to comply with the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate. The court concluded that plaintiff had shown neither irreparable injury nor inadequate remedies through a Title VII action. Among other things, the court rejected the argument that the doctor will suffer a deterioration in skills that amounts to irreparable injury.

Another Challenge To School District's Vaccine Mandate Fails

 Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, June 21. 2022), is another attempt by parents and students to challenge the school district's COVID vaccine mandate that does not provide for religious exemptions. The 9th Circuit last year ultimately upheld the school district's prior policy, and the Circuit denied en banc review. The court said in part:

Even Plaintiffs concede that substantively, the new COVID-19 vaccinate mandate is largely the same as before, with a new implementation timeline.... Plaintiffs’ new claims in the FAC are still premised on violations of the Free Exercise Clause, just as the claim in the original complaint was. Accordingly, the Court is bound by the law of this case.

Meat Processor Is Not State Actor In Requiring COVID Vaccination of Employees

In Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (WD TN, June 14, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that their rights under RFRA and free exercise clause were violated when their employer required them to be vaccinated against COVID.  The court held that plaintiffs were not state actors, even though the President had invoked the Defense Production Act and instructed meat and poultry procession plants to continue operations.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant acted as an “agent of the government … by imposing strict worker vaccination rules to (in the estimation of the federal government), in order to preserve the integrity of the national food supply.”... However, no facts are pled that would enable the Court to find a sufficient nexus between Defendant’s vaccine policy and the involvement of the Government. The mere fact that Defendant relied on OSHA and CDC guidance in formulating its vaccine policy does not make Defendant an “agent of the government.” Nor does the fact that Defendant is subject to the federal government’s COVID-19 guidance for meat and poultry plants convert Defendant into a government actor.

The court also dismissed several other, but not all, of plaintiffs' additional claims.