TRO Granted To 2 Military Members Denied Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate

In Navy Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Feb. 2, 2022), a Florida federal district court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the military from enforcing its COVID vaccination mandate against two individual service members until Feb. 11 in order to maintain the status quo until a hearing on a preliminary injunction is held.  The service members faced imminent removal from command positions for refusing vaccination. The court said in part:

The record in this action establishes that the two service members are very likely to prevail on their claim that their respective branch of the military has wrongfully denied a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination. The record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing and without the showing required under RFRA (while simultaneously granting medical exemptions and permitting unvaccinated persons to continue in service without adverse consequence).

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Court Refuses To Enjoin Medical Campus' Vaccination Mandate

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (D CO, Jan. 27, 2022), a Colorado federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the COVID vaccination requirements of the University of Colorado's Medical Campus.  Under a revised policy, employees are entitled to a religious accommodation if the accommodation would not unduly burden the health and safety of others.  Medical students are not entitled to religious accommodations.  The court found the policy neutral and generally applicable, and so subject only to rational basis review.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court does not see how offering employees the opportunity to request a religious accommodation could amount to treating comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. For one thing, Plaintiffs have not shown that employees and students are comparable in this context....

[A]lthough the University has determined it can accommodate some employees by allowing them to work remotely, Plaintiffs have made no showing that a similar accommodation for students is practicable.  And ... the ... Policy treats employees and students differently because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects the former but not the latter....

The court also concluded that the presence of medical exemptions does not prevent the Policy from being generally applicable.

Split En Banc 9th Circuit Denies Review of Refusal To Enjoin School Vaccine Mandate that Lacks Religious Exemption

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied en banc  reconsideration of the refusal to enjoin, pending appeal, a school district's COVID vaccine mandate that does not provide for religious exemptions. In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 2022), the court denied en banc review of the panel's decision, with various judges filing opinions dissenting from, or concurring with, the denial. Judge Bumatay, in a 21-page opinion joined by six other judges (and concurred in by one judge with senior status), dissented, saying in part:

Simply put, the District can’t have it both ways by allowing secular exemptions but prohibiting religious ones. If the District offers any secular vaccine exemption with a similar risk profile to a religious exemption, it must satisfy strict scrutiny to exclude a religious exemption. The Constitution forbids the District from picking and choosing its preferred secular exemptions while disfavoring religious exemptions. And this remains true in times of crisis.

Judges Berzon and Bennett filed an opinion concurring in the denial of reconsideration which offered rebuttals to each point made by Judge Bumatay in his dissent. Judge Bress, joined by Judge Bade, and Judge Forrest filed a briefer dissenting opinions as well.

Air Force Officer Sues After Accommodation For Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine Is Denied

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court by a female Air Force officer who has served in the military for 25 years and who was forced into retirement when she refused for religious reasons to take any of the current COVID vaccines.  Her request for a religious accommodation was denied.  The complaint (full text) in Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, filed 1/6/2022), alleges in part:

52. As a Christian, Plaintiff believes that abortion is a grave evil and contrary to her faith.

53. Plaintiff sincerely believes that receiving a vaccine that was derived from or tested on aborted fetal tissue in its development would violate her conscience and is contrary to her faith....

55. In addition, in accordance with her faith, Plaintiff believes that her “body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19-20), and that injection with a novel substance of unknown long-term effects would violate this belief.

Plaintiff claims that the Air Force's actions violate RFRA and the 1st Amendment. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Connecticut Elimination Of Religious Exemption From School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

 In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (D CT, Jan. 11, 2022), a Connecticut federal district court upheld a Connecticut statute that eliminates the religious exemption from the state requirement for vaccinations for school children. Medical exemptions remain in the statute, and students with previous religious exemptions are allowed to retain them. The court summarized its conclusions in part as follows:

Count One, alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, is dismissed because mandatory vaccination as a condition to school enrollment does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, even if P.A. 21-6 was not foreclosed by Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, it is constitutional because it is a neutral law of general applicability which is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

CT Insider reports on the decision.

"Spiritual Distress" From Employer's Vaccine Mandate Is Not "Irreparable Injury"

In Romano v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, (ED MI, Jan. 3, 2022), a Michigan federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to an employee who was to be fired because he refused to comply with his employer's COVID vaccine mandate.  Plaintiff's refusal was based on religious objections and he claimed the employer's denial of his request for a religious exemption violated Title VII, the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Free Exercise Clause and the Michigan Constitution. However, the court concluded that plaintiff did not meet the "irreparable injury" requirement necessary to support an injunction.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff claimed that his damages are irreparable because he will be fired, lose prestige and seniority, have his reputation marred, and suffer "spiritual distress."... But none of the alleged harms are irreparable....

Although the Court is sympathetic to religious persons who must confront the "impossible choice," Plaintiff never developed a sound legal argument for why the injury attributable to "impossible choice" is irreparable.... Plaintiff instead cited cases that enjoined government COVID19 vaccine mandates—not private COVID-19 vaccine mandates.... As Judge Pittman noted in a similar case, although "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," the First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Defendant....

Going forward, other plaintiffs may have an avenue for injunctive relief in Title VII COVID-19 vaccine mandate cases based on stronger legal arguments and facts.... Yet it is not the Court's role to advance legal and factual arguments for litigants; the Court resolves disputes based on the arguments that litigants assert.

National Law Review reports on the decision.

Rhode Island Vaccine Mandate For Health Care Workers Upheld

In Dr. T v. Alexander-Scott, (D RI, Jan. 7, 2022), a Rhode Island federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge to a Rhode Island Department of Health regulation requiring all health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID.  The Regulation contains a narrow medical exemption, but no religious exemption. The court (which had previously denied a temporary restraining order) concluded that the regulation is both neutral and generally applicable. The court said in part:

The Regulation’s medical exemption serves the state’s principal purpose of protecting public health. A failure to exempt the limited number of individuals whose health a vaccine may jeopardize would be counterproductive to that goal to the extent of illogicality. There is no suggestion of a discriminatory bias against religion.

The court also concluded that since the regulation is silent as to religious exemptions, it does not preclude compliance with the reasonable accommodation requirements of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Navy Enjoined From Applying Vaccine Mandate To Plaintiff Religious Objectors

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, Jan. 3, 2022), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on 35 Navy service members who are plaintiffs in the case.  The court held that plaintiffs need not exhaust their military remedies before suing because, while the Navy's policy provides for religious exemptions, the denial of each exemption request is predetermined.  Also, even if a religious exemption is granted, the service member is then permanently barred from deployment.

The court concluded that applying the vaccine mandate to plaintiffs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

Because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial burden, Defendants must show that this burden furthers a compelling interest using the least restrictive means....

Even if Defendants have a broad compelling interest in widespread vaccination of its force, they have achieved this goal without the participation of the thirty-five Plaintiffs here. At least 99.4% of all active-duty Navy servicemembers have been vaccinated.... The remaining 0.6% is unlikely to undermine the Navy’s efforts.... With a 99.4% vaccination rate, the Navy’s herd immunity is at an all-time high. COVID-19 treatments are becoming increasingly effective at reducing hospitalization and death....

Moreover, the Navy is willing to grant exemptions for non-religious reasons. Its mandate includes carveouts for those participating in clinical trials and those with medical contraindications and allergies to vaccines.... Because these categories of exempt servicemembers are still deployable, a clinical trial participant who receives a placebo may find himself ill in the high-stakes situation that Defendants fear.... As a result, the mandate is underinclusive.

The court also concluded that applying the mandate to plaintiffs violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause because the mandate is not neutral and generally applicable.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

Defense Authorization Act Requires Religious Exemptions From COVID Vaccine Mandate

On Wednesday, the Senate gave final approval to S.1605, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (full text) by a vote of 88-11. The bill, which was previously passed by the House, now goes to the President for his signature. The bill-- which is over 2000 pages in length-- includes the following provision:

Section 720: The Secretary of Defense shall establish uniform standards under which covered members may be exempted from receiving an otherwise mandated COVID-19 vaccine for administrative, medical, or religious reasons.

5th Circuit Denies Injunction Pending Appeal In Challenge To Airline's Vaccine Mandate

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Dec. 13, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, denied an injunction while an appeal is pending in a challenge by United Airlines employees to the company's vaccine mandate that lacks religious or medical exemptions. The majority in a 3-sentence opinion relied on the reasons stated by the district court in denying a preliminary injunction: namely plaintiffs must show "irreparable injury" in order to obtain an injunction, and mere loss of income is not irreparable-- it can be remedied by recovery of damages. (See prior posting.) 

Judge Ho filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Vaccine mandates like the one United is attempting to impose here present a crisis of conscience for many people of faith. It forces them to choose between the two most profound obligations they will ever assume—holding true to their religious commitments and feeding and housing their children.

To many, this is the most horrifying of Hobson’s choices. And it is a quintessentially irreparable injury, warranting preliminary injunctive relief.

9th Circuit: Seminary Is Exempt From Title IX In Applying Its Sexual Standards

In Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary, (9th Cir., Dec. 13, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Fuller Theological Seminary falls within the religious organization exemption in Title IX even though the school is controlled by its own board rather than an outside religious organization. Plaintiffs sued under Title IX after they were dismissed from the Seminary because, in violation of the school's Sexual Standards, they were in same-sex marriages. The court said that it cannot second-guess the seminary's interpretation of its own religious tenets. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Soap Opera Star Sues ABC Over Religious Exemption To Vaccine Mandate

Litigation over religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates continues to grow. Yesterday, Ingo Rademacher-- well known for portraying Jasper Jacks on the ABC soap opera General Hospital-- sued in a California state court after his request for a religious exemption from ABC's vaccine requirement was denied. He argues that the expansive right to privacy afforded by the California state constitution protects both informational privacy and bodily integrity, and can be enforced against private parties. The complaint (full text) in Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., filed 12/13/2021) contends:

ABC does not have the authority to force a medical treatment on its employees against their will. Even if it did, it must offer religious exemptions to the forced treatment to anyone who requests one. It cannot discriminate among religions and cannot second-guess the sincerity of one's religious beliefs....

Deadline reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Upholds NY Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption-- This Time Over 14-Page dissent

In Dr. A v. Hochul, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 13, 2021), the U.S. Supreme Court today by a vote of 6-3, refused to enjoin enforcement of New York's COVID vaccine mandate which has no religious exemptions.  This is a companion case to We The Patriots USA v. Hochul which reached a similar result with no Justices filing opinions to accompany the Court's order. (See prior posting.) In Dr. A, Justice Gorsuch filed a 14-page dissent, joined by Justice Alito. The opinion reads in part:

Under the Free Exercise Clause, government “cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.” ...  As a result, we have said that government actions burdening religious practice should be “set aside” if there is even “slight suspicion” that those actions “stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices.”...

New York’s mandate is such an action. The State began with a plan to exempt religious objectors from its vaccine mandate and only later changed course. Its regulatory impact statement offered no explanation for the about-face. At the same time, a new Governor whose assumption of office coincided with the change in policy admitted that the revised mandate “left off ” a religious exemption “intentionally.” The Governor offered an extraordinary explanation for the change too. She said that “God wants” people to be vaccinated—and that those who disagree are not listening to “organized religion” or “everybody from the Pope on down.”

Justice Thomas dissented without an opinion. National Law Journal has more on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Relief In Challenge To NY Vaccine Mandate That Lacks Religious Exemption

In another "shadow docket" case, the U.S. Supreme Court today in a brief Order (full text) denied injunctive relief in We The Patriots USA v. Hochul. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented. The case was a challenge to the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID. The 2nd Circuit had also denied an injunction. (See prior posting.) CNBC reports on the Court's action.

Denial Of Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Violated Free Exercise Rights

In Grantonz v. Earley, (ND OH, Dec. 10, 2021), an Ohio federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Cleveland Municipal Court from enforcing its COVID vaccine mandate against two employees (a bailiff and a court reporter) who sought, but were denied, religious exemptions. The court said in part:

Where the Cleveland Municipal Court Order compels Plaintiffs to choose between following their religious beliefs or forfeiting their jobs, it significantly burdens their free exercise of religion and is not neutral. Further, by setting up a mechanism for exemptions which are granted at Defendants’ discretion and without an opportunity for appeal, AO 2021-05 is not generally applicable....

The Cleveland Municipal Court’s Administrative Order AO 2021-05 does not pass the test of strict scrutiny. Defendants have not articulated compelling reasons for denial of religious exemptions. In the October 2, 2021 letters to Plaintiffs, in fact, Defendants provided no reasons whatsoever. A policy, such as the one before this Court, that infringes the free exercise of religion, that does not serve interests of the highest order and is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests cannot survive strict scrutiny. 

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Against School District's Vaccine Mandate

On Nov. 28, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate because it denied religious exemptions while allowing a deferral option for pregnant students. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the school district removed the deferral option for pregnant students. So in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2021), the court, in a 2-1 decision, held:

Given the removal of the “per se” deferral option for pregnant students, the injunction issued in the November 28, 2021 order has terminated under its own terms.

The majority rejected the claim that medical exemptions, temporary exemptions for students who are homeless, in migrant status or foster care, or in military families, and special provisions for students with Individualized Education Programs, but the absence of religious exemptions, undermine the general applicability of the vaccine mandate.

Judge Ikuta dissented, arguing that these secular exemptions mean that the mandate is not generally applicable and thus must be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard, saying in part:

These religious and secular activities pose identical risks to the government’s asserted interest in ensuring the “safest environment possible for all students and employees,” because both result in the presence of unvaccinated students in the classroom, who could spread COVID-19 to other students and employees.

Plaintiff's attorney has said that emergency relief will be sought from the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here is plaintiffs' Petition for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking for an injunction or stay pending appeal.

Supreme Court Denies Injunction Pending Appeal Of Case On Vaccine Mandate Exemptions

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham Inc. through an Order by Justice Breyer denied an Emergency Application for an injunction pending appeal to the 1st Circuit of a district court decision. At issue is the denial to eight employees of religious or medical exemptions from a health care system's COVID vaccine mandate.  The 1st Circuit in an Opinion handed down Nov. 18 had previously denied an injunction pending appeal. Boston Globe reports on the case.

9th Circuit Enjoins School District Vaccine Mandate Pending Appeal

In an Order in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Nov. 28, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate which, while allowing certain medical exemptions, does not provide for religious exemptions for students. Judges Berzon and Bennett said the injunction would be removed if the school district removed its "per se" deferral option for pregnant students.  Judge Ikuta, in a partial dissent, said:

I would keep the injunction in effect until the ... School District ceases to treat any students (not just pregnant students) seeking relief from the vaccination mandate for secular reasons more favorably than students seeking relief for religious reasons, because any unvaccinated student attending in-person classes poses the same risk to the school district’s interest in ensuring a safe school environment

The court said that written opinions explaining the order "will follow shortly." California Globe reports on the decision.

New York City Educators' COVID Mandate Falters On Religious Exemption Procedures

In Kane v. De Blasio, (2d Cir., Nov. 28, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York City's COVID vaccine mandate for school teachers and administrators is not facially unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment because it is a neutral law of general applicability. However the court held that the process-- determined by an arbitrator-- for deciding whether a person is entitled to a religious exemption is unconstitutional:

The Accommodation Standards allowed employees to request a religious accommodation by submitting a request that is “documented in writing by a religious official (e.g., clergy).”... Requests “shall be denied where the leader of the religious organization has spoken publicly in favor of the vaccine, where the documentation is readily available (e.g., from an online source), or where the objection is personal, political, or philosophical in nature.”...

Denying an individual a religious accommodation based on someone else’s publicly expressed religious views — even the leader of her faith —runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s teaching that “[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds.”

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Labor Department Proposes Rescinding Trump Era's Broad Religious Employer Exemption Rule

The Department of Labor yesterday released a proposal (full text) to rescind a Trump Administration rule (see prior posting) that defined expansively the religious exemption in the agency's rules imposing anti-discrimination requirements on government contractors and subcontractors. Yesterday's Release says in part:

OFCCP believes that the 2020 rule creates a lack of clarity regarding the scope and application of the exemption because ... it misstates the law in key respects. In addition, as a threshold matter, OFCCP has reevaluated the need for the rule. For the 17 years prior to 2020, OFCCP implemented the Executive Order 11246 religious exemption without seeking to codify its scope and application in specific regulatory language....

[T]he 2020 rule creates its own religious employer test, independent of Title VII case law interpreting the identical term. The test adopted in the 2020 rule permits a contractor whose purpose and/or character is not primarily religious to qualify for the Executive Order 11246 religious exemption....

In addition, the 2020 rule retreats from the general principle that qualifying religious employers are prohibited from taking employment actions that amount to discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics other than religion, even if the decisions are made for sincerely held religious reasons....

FCW reports on the proposed rule rescission.