1st Circuit: Free Exercise Claim by Maine Healthcare Workers Over COVID Mandate May Move Forward

 In Lowe v. Mills, (1st Cir., May 25, 2023), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part a Maine district court's dismissal of a suit by seven health care facility workers whose request for religious exemptions from the state's COVID vaccine mandate was rejected.  The court said in part:

The claims against the State assert, among other things, that the Mandate, by allowing medical but not religious exemptions, violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution....

We agree with the district court that the complaint's factual allegations establish that violating the Mandate in order to provide the plaintiffs' requested accommodation would have caused undue hardship for the Providers, and so affirm the dismissal of the Title VII claims. But we conclude that the plaintiffs' complaint states claims for relief under the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, as it is plausible, based on the plaintiffs' allegations and in the absence of further factual development, that the Mandate treats comparable secular and religious activity dissimilarly without adequate justification.

Air Force Announces Portal To Process Religious Exemption Requests

The U.S. Air Force announced last week that it has developed a Portal to streamline requests for religious accommodation filed by Air Force, Space Force, and civilian employees, as well as appeals from denials of requests. According to an Air Force official:

The service has seen an exponential increase in religious accommodation requests, and the portal offers a systemic automated solution to ensure our servicemembers and civilians are assisted in the most expeditious manner going forward.

The Air Force has been embroiled in litigation filed by service members seeking religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. (See prior posting.)

9th Circuit Remands Employees' Challenge to Vaccine Exemption Denial

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir., May 15, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision from a California federal district court that denied preliminary relief to two city and county employees who were denied religious exemptions from CCSF's COVID vaccine mandate. The appeals court said in part:

The district court erroneously concluded that “[n]either Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine...."...

Beyond the district court’s factual error, its decision reflects a misunderstanding of Title VII law. A religious belief need not be consistent or rational to be protected under Title VII, and an assertion of a sincere religious belief is generally accepted.... 

The district court did not explain its conclusion that Appellants had not established sincerity beyond stating that there are “no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines . . . are . . . derived from murdered babies” and generally stating that personal preferences are not sincere religious beliefs. And CCSF offered no argument or evidence that Appellants’ beliefs are insincere. Absent any indication otherwise, it seems that the district court erroneously held that Appellants had not asserted sincere religious beliefs because their beliefs were not scientifically accurate. Remand is warranted for the district court to reevaluate Appellants’ claims applying the proper failure-to-accommodate inquiry....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Hospital for Failing to Accommodate Religious Objection to Flu Shot

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against Mercy Health St. Mary’s, a Grand Rapids, Michigan hospital for refusing to provide a religious accommodation to a job applicant and declining to hire him because of his religious beliefs. The release said in part:

... Mercy Health St. Mary’s violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by rescinding a job offer to an applicant who, for religious reasons, refused to receive a flu vaccine. Under Mercy Health’s influenza policy, employees are required to get a flu shot on an annual basis unless granted an exemption. While the applicant’s conditional job offer was pending, he applied for an exemption to the flu shot requirement based on his religious beliefs. Mercy Health arbitrarily denied his request and rescinded the job offer, without specifying to the applicant why or how his request for an exemption was deficient, the EEOC said.

Court Calls for Fuller Explanation for Denying Religious Exemption from COVOD Vaccine Mandate

 In Matter of Daniels v. New York City Police Dept., (Sup. Ct. NY County, April 24, 2023), a New York state trial court remanded to the City of New York Reasonable Accommodations Appeals Panel a claim for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate brought by a NYPD officer assigned to the Emergency Services Unit.  The initial determination by the NYPD Equal Employment Opportunity Division was communicated through a pre-printed form with three boxes checked off indicating insufficient documentation and explanation as well as a lack of a history of vaccine refusal.  The Appeals Panel merely adopted the EEOD's reasoning.  In calling for a fuller explanation, the court said in part:

The NYPD EEOD's determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action. The court has nothing before it that would enable it to analyze how the pre-printed "reasons" that were checked off on its determination letter related to or defeated the petitioner's request for accommodation. This type of conclusory administrative determination would require the court to speculate as to the thought processes of the person who checked the boxes, and provide its own reasons for those choices, an approach prohibited by longstanding rules of law.

Mississippi Must Grant Religious Exemptions To School Vaccination Requirements

 In Bosarge v. Edney, (SD MS, April 18, 2023), a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Mississippi's State Health Officer, as well as school officials named as defendants, to provide religious exemptions from the state's mandatory vaccination requirements for school children. The court said in part:

The face of the statute allows for medical exemptions but affords no exemption for religious beliefs, and the Complaint alleges that this constitutes “an unconstitutional value judgment that secular (i.e., medical) motivations for opting out of compulsory immunization are permitted, but that religious motivations are not.”....

The Attorney General’s argument is essentially that the Compulsory Vaccination Law does not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the [Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act] MRFRA saves it.... Taking this argument to its logical conclusion as to Plaintiffs’ facial challenge, no Mississippi statute could ever violate the Free Exercise Clause on its face because the more general, non-specific MRFRA applies to all State laws and operates to cure any law that would otherwise be deemed to violate the Free Exercise Clause.... However, at least in this case, the Court is not persuaded that the MRFRA can be read in this fashion with respect to Plaintiffs’ facial challenge.

RNS reports on the decision.

Dismissal Recommended in Healthcare Worker's Claim for Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Bolonchuk v. Cherry Creek Nursing Center/ Nexion Health, (D CO, April 12, 2023), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a former nursing home healthcare employee whose 18-year long employment was terminated after she refused on religious grounds to comply with her employer's Covid vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. A state regulation required the vaccine mandate. The court rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim because defendant was not alleged to be a state actor.  It also rejected her claim that Title VII required a religious accommodation, saying in part:

Defendant would have had to violate a state law (i.e., the regulation mandate) in order to accommodate Plaintiff, clearly establishing an undue hardship.

NYPD Administrative Review of Religious Exemption Claim Was Arbitrary

In Matter of Quagliata v New York City Police Department, (NY County Sup. Ct., March 17, 2023), a New York state trial court remanded a case in which an administrative Panel refused to grant an NYPD police officer a religious exemption from New York City's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Inasmuch as the Panel’s determination sets forth absolutely no rationale whatsoever for its conclusions, other than to incorporate the conclusory reasons articulated by the NYPD EEOD, the Panel’s determination is facially arbitrary and capricious, and may be annulled on that ground alone....

Even were the court directly to review the NYPD EEOD’s initial determination, it nonetheless would be constrained to conclude that the initial determination also was arbitrary and capricious. The NYPD EEOD’s determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action....

The court’s conclusion in this regard should not be construed as a ruling that, had the petitioner’s stated reasons for his request for an exemption, and his discussion of religious doctrine, properly been analyzed..., the petitioner’s contentions would have constituted a proper basis for an exemption... 

With respect to ... violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and discrimination in employment..., the petitioner has not established either that the City’s vaccine mandate or the termination of his own employment were premised upon religion, as he has not demonstrated that his conclusions about sin, the use of embryonic stem cells in the development and improvement of various vaccinations and medications, and the alleged proscription of desecrating the human body via any genetic manipulation that mRNA vaccinations might generate, are established Catholic doctrine, or merely his personal interpretation of his obligations as a practicing Catholic.

Suit Challenges Connecticut's Elimination of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirement

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court by a Christian preschool and the church that sponsors it challenging Connecticut's removal of religious exemptions from its statute requiring various vaccinations for preschool children. The complaint (full text) in Milford Christian Church v. Russell-Tucker, (D CT, filed 3/6/2023) alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection, and child rearing rights. It alleges in part:

63. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a denies a generally available benefit – education– to children if their parents do not abandon their religious beliefs while affording the same benefit to parents and children who assert a medical exemption.

64. Adding insult to injury, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a prevents parents from seeking alternative education options for their children by applying the same mandate to private schools, daycares, and pre-schools, including those operated by churches and religious organizations.

65. In other words, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a forces parents to either renounce their religious beliefs and vaccinate their children or homeschool their children– something that many parents cannot do – thus depriving them any educational opportunities.

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: Employees Have No Free Exercise Claim Against Company That Denied Them a Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Ciraci v. J.M. Smucker Company, (6th Cir., March 14, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that employees of a company that sells food products to the federal government may not assert a 1st Amendment free-exercise claim against the company for denying them a religious exemption from a COVID vaccine mandate imposed by the company after the federal government required government contractors to do so. The court said in part:

Constitutional guarantees conventionally apply only to entities that exercise sovereign power, such as federal, state, or local governments.... Smucker’s may be a big company. But it is not a sovereign. Even so, did Smucker’s become a federal actor—did it exercise sovereign power?—for purposes of this free-exercise claim when it sold products to the federal government and when it imposed the vaccine mandate because the federal government required it to do so as a federal contractor? No, as the district court correctly held. We affirm....

Smucker’s does not perform a traditional, exclusive public function; it has not acted jointly with the government or entwined itself with it; and the government did not compel it to deny anyone an exemption. That Smucker’s acted in compliance with a federal law and that Smucker’s served as a federal contractor—the only facts alleged in the claimants’ complaint—do not by themselves make the company a government actor.

The court went on to suggest that even if the company were a state actor, there may be no cause of action against them:

To the extent the claimants seek damages directly under the First Amendment against a federal official, they must rely on the kind of implied cause of action created by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). But extending Bivens is “disfavored” ...

That leaves claimants’ demands for a declaratory judgment, reinstatement, and other equitable relief. In equity, it is true, claimants sometimes may “sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers” even in the absence of a statutory cause of action.... But today’s claimants seek more than a prohibitory injunction. They seek reinstatement and other affirmative relief. It is not clear whether, as a matter of historical equitable practice, we may infer, imply, or create a cause of action for such relief. But because the parties have not briefed or argued these points and because they do not go to our jurisdiction, we need not decide them today.

Minnesota Appeals Court Decides When Religious Reasons for Vaccine Refusal Were Proven

In three cases decided within days of each other, the Minnesota Court of Appeals wrestled with the question of whether employees' claims of religious objections to the COVID vaccine were credible.  At issue in each case was the former employee's entitlement to unemployment benefits.  If the religious claim was legitimate, vaccine refusal would not constitute disqualifying employment misconduct.

In Washa v. Actalent Scientific, LLC, (MN App, Feb. 22, 2023), the court reversed the decision of an unemployment law judge. It found that substantial evidence did not support the unemployment-law judge's finding that a medical lab technician's refusal was based on safety concerns rather than religious beliefs.  The technician had testified that he did not want to be defiled so that God could enter and he could avoid going to Hell.

In Quarnstrom v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., Feb. 22, 2023), the court remanded the case, finding that the unemployment-law judge had used the wrong standard in deciding whether an insurance adjustor's refusal was personal rather than religious. The court said in part:

The ULJ reasoned that Quarnstrom’s reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were not based on sincerely held religious beliefs because she did not cite to particular passages in the Bible, had not been instructed by a religious advisor to refuse the vaccine, and conceded that other members of her congregation could, consistent with their faith, choose to get a vaccine. But “the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.”...

In McConnell v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App, Feb. 24, 2023), the court in a 2-1 decision held that the record did not support the unemployment-law judge's conclusion that vaccine refusal by an FRB employee was based on secular, not religious, reasons.  The majority said in part:

Although McConnell testified to concerns regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, she repeatedly tied those concerns back to her faith.... [S]he testified that, although she believes in some medical interventions, she “prayerfully consider[s] things.” The ULJ found McConnell’s testimony regarding safety concerns credible and rejected her testimony regarding her religious beliefs as not credible.... The ULJ offered no reason for crediting only part of McConnell’s testimony, and we can discern none.

Judge Segal dissented, saying in part:

I would conclude that, although it implicates constitutional rights, this appeal, like many others, turns on a credibility determination that is supported by the record. As such, I believe that precedent requires that we defer to the ULJ’s credibility determination.

Poll Worker Loses Free Exercise Challenge to Vaccine Mandate

In Wolfe v. Logan, (CD CA, Jan 25, 2023), a California federal district court in an In Chambers proceeding granted Los Angeles County officials' motion to dismiss numerous challenges by plaintiff to the county's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for poll workers. Rejecting plaintiff's Free Exercise challenge, the court said in part:

The policy, as alleged by Wolfe, is neutral and generally applicable. It does not directly target religious expression; the burden that a vaccination requirement places on religious practice is incidental. Wolfe alleges that the vaccination requirement is "without exception."... Because there are no exceptions, there is no individualized exemption process that might invite religious discrimination. Moreover, the vaccine requirement makes no distinction between secular or religious objections people might have to the vaccine; everyone is required to get one if they wish to act as a poll worker.... The policy could hardly be more neutral and generally applicable, and it is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny.

Court Rejects Free Exercise Claim of Judge Who Was Not Reappointed Because of Vaccination Status

In Donlon v. City of Hornell, (WD NY, Feb. 27, 2023), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the city to appoint plaintiff to another term as an assistant city court judge. Plaintiff was denied a religious exemption from the New York court system's COVID vaccination mandate.  This meant that she was unable to conduct in-person hearings and could not maintain a criminal calendar while working virtually. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the City’s alleged reasons for denying her reappointment were either “non-neutral or not generally applicable.”... 

In her papers, Plaintiff has a tendency to conflate her vaccination status with her religious beliefs, but the two are distinct....

Plaintiff acknowledges that the City’s concern was not her religious beliefs about vaccination, but the fact that her vaccination status interfered with her “ability to do [her] job while barred from the courtroom.”...

The City’s preference for a candidate who could hold proceedings in person and maintain the criminal caseload required of the position is “religion[] neutral.”... The City is free to prefer such a candidate, and Plaintiff is not, “under the auspices of her religion, constitutionally entitled to an exemption,”... or to “preferential . . . treatment.”... Furthermore, Plaintiff presents no evidence that the City’s preference was not generally applicable—i.e., that the City relied on this preference in a selective manner, imposing “burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.”... There were only two candidates for the position, and, in accordance with its “religion-neutral” preference, the City selected an attorney who was vaccinated and could therefore conduct proceedings in person.

Nurse Denied Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate Loses Title VII and Free Exercise Challenges

In Riley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, Feb. 17, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed without prejudice a suit by a Christian nurse in a hospital's surgical unit who claimed that denying her a religious exemption from the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate violated her rights under Title VII and the Free Exercise Clause. The court said in part:

Title VII cannot be used to require employers to break the law..... When the defendant implemented its vaccine mandate, [New York State Department of Health Rule] Section 2.61, a binding state regulation, required the defendant to “continuously require personnel” like the plaintiff “to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, absent receipt of” a medical exemption. 10 N.Y.C.C.R. § 2.61(c)....

The plaintiff does not argue that the defendant’s vaccine mandate was not generally applicable. She argues only that the mandate “was not neutral and was and is hostile to the religious beliefs of the plaintiff, as it presupposed the illegitimacy of her religious beliefs and practices.”... An enactment violates the neutrality principle if it “explicitly singles out a religious practice” or “targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment.”... The plaintiff pleads no facts suggesting that the defendant’s mandate is guilty of either. To the extent the plaintiff alleges that the mandate’s lack of a religious exception alone makes it non-neutral, We The Patriots forecloses that argument. See 17 F.4th at 282....

Denial of NYPD Officer's Religious Objection to Vaccination Was Arbitrary and Capricious

 In Grullon v. City of New York, (NY County Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2023), a New York state trial court held that the New York Police Department's denial in internal appeals of a police officer's religious objections to the Department's Covid vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious. The court said in part:

[D]espite Petitioner's detailed submission, the Appeals Panel failed to even mention any of Petitioner's arguments, let alone refute them as being non-religious in nature or not sincerely held beliefs. The decision also failed to mention NYPD's underlying decision denying Petitioner's application or the basis of the decision including the reasons listed on the checked boxes. The decision also failed to mention that it was affirming NYPD's denial and that it agreed with any of the reasons for which the underlying denial was based. Simply, the denial of the appeal is devoid of any explanation, reasoning, or support for its determination that Petitioner's request for a reasonable accommodation did not meet criteria. The Appeals Panel failed to state what the criteria was for obtaining a reasonable accommodation, it failed to include which criteria Petitioner's request failed to satisfy, or any details or support for its determination. Without any explanation or details, the purported reason provided that it did not meet criteria is tantamount to no reason at all.

The court concluded that the officer is entitled to employment with a reasonable accommodation of weekly Covid testing.

Student Loses Free Exercise Challenge To University's COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Collins v. City University of New York, (SD NY, Feb. 8, 2023), a New York federal district court rejected a student's claims that his free exercise, equal protection and procedural due process rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from City University's COVID vaccine mandate.  In rejecting the student's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

As established by recent Second Circuit case law, the Vaccination Policy is neutral, generally applicable, and easily passes rational basis review.

2nd Circuit Hears Arguments on Religious Objections to NYC Employee Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in New Yorkers For Religious Liberty, Inc. v. The City of New York. (Mp3 audio of full oral arguments.) At issue are 1st and 14th Amendment challenges to New York City's public employee COVID vaccine mandate by employees with religious objections to the vaccines. (See prior posting). ADF has links to some of the pleadings filed in the case.

Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Is Upheld

In Spivack v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, Jan. 4, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that Philadelphia's District Attorney Lawrence Krasner did not violate the religious rights of an Orthodox Jewish Assistant District Attorney when he refused to grant her an exemption from the Office's COVID vaccine mandate. The mandate, in its final form, offered no religious exemptions and only limited medical exemptions. According to the court, in seeking a religious exemption plaintiff submitted a letter from her rabbi that explained:

congregation members are forbidden from (1) benefitting from the live dissection of animals; (2) using hybridization technologies; (3) "self-flagellating"; (4) exposing themselves to unnecessary risk (Spivack's "natural immunity" to the virus made vaccination unnecessary); and (5) injecting a product whose precise ingredients are undisclosed.... Neither Krasner nor the City disputes that Spivack's sincerely holds her religious beliefs.

Rejecting plaintiff's First Amendment challenge, the court said in part:

Spivack offers no evidence that Krasner's exemption changes "stemmed from religious intolerance, rather than an intent to more fully ensure that employees [at the DAO] receive the vaccine in furtherance of the State's public health goal."...

[T]he medical exemption Krasner finally approved was for an objectively and narrowly defined category of persons: non-union DAO employees for whom a vaccination could be life-threatening. This is not the kind of exemption that undermines the Policy's general applicability....

The DAO ... "seriously considered substantially less restrictive alternatives" in the hope that they could achieve the Office's compelling interest-- "trying to keep people as safe as we can."... Concluding that these alternatives were inadequate, the Office required vaccinations for all non-union employees save one.

In these circumstances, the DAO Vaccine Policy survives strict scrutiny review.

Court Says Idiosyncratic Personal Religious Beliefs May Not Support Religious Accommodation

In In re Moscatelli v. New York City Police Department, (NY Cnty. Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2022), a New York trial court annulled an administrative determination that denied a New York City Detective a religious exemption from the city's COVID vaccine mandate. The court held that the administrative determination was arbitrary and capricious, saying that "the NYPD EEOD’s determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action." The court went on, however, to say:

The court’s conclusion in this regard should not be construed as a ruling that, had the petitioner’s stated reasons for his request for an exemption, and his discussion of religious doctrine, properly been analyzed and explained by the Panel or the NYPD EEOD in the challenged decisions, those contentions would have constituted a proper basis for an exemption. That would have required a forthright engagement by those agencies with the religious contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.... It would also have required some actual inquiry ... into the petitioner’s prior behavior concerning vaccines and medications. Had those agencies taken that approach, their determinations might have survived judicial scrutiny, as the petitioner provided scanty proof that the rejection of vaccinations or medications that have been developed, improved, or tested using fetal stem cells is an accepted tenet of Catholic doctrine, as opposed to a personal interpretation of doctrine by a lay person or even a few members of the clergy....

[T]he petitioner ... has not demonstrated that his conclusions about sin, the use of embryonic stem cells in the development and improvement of various vaccinations and medications, and the alleged proscription of desecrating the human body via any genetic manipulation that mRNA vaccinations might generate, are established Catholic doctrine, or merely his personal interpretation of his obligations as a practicing Catholic....  Nor has he demonstrated that he had previously declined to be treated with [other] drugs ... which were either developed, improved, or recently tested by their manufacturers for adverse side effects using stem cells from aborted fetuses.

Army Enjoined from Disciplining Plaintiffs Who Refuse COVID Vaccine on Religious Grounds

A Texas federal district court this week issued a preliminary injunction preventing the military from taking disciplinary action against ten members of the Army who object on religious grounds to complying with the Army's COVID vaccine mandate.  However, the injunction does not prevent the military from taking their vaccination status into account in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions.  In the case, Schelske v. Austin, (ND TX, Dec. 21, 2022), the court said in part:

The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But ... these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs’ religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden....

The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Army can prove that application of the vaccine mandate to these plaintiffs furthers a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible. At every turn, however, the evidence before the Court weighs against the Army and in favor of the plaintiffs....

Finally, the Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.... If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to “rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” within 30 days of enactment.... Despite these developments, the Army has refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any agreement that this Court can enforce.