In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 per curiam decision, reversed a Texas federal district court's decision that no "irreparable injury" had been suffered by United Airlines employees who were placed on unpaid leave after they refused for religious reasons to comply with the company's COVID vaccine mandate. The district court held that the employees were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because their loss of income could be remedied by an award of damages in an action under Title VII. The 5th Circuit majority disagreed, saying in part:
Critically, we do not decide whether United or any other entity may impose a vaccine mandate. Nor do we decide whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to a preliminary injunction. The district court denied such an injunction on one narrow ground; we reverse on that one narrow ground and remand for further consideration....
Properly understood, the plaintiffs are alleging two distinct harms— one of which is reparable ..., and the other of which is irreparable.... The first is United’s decision to place them on indefinite unpaid leave; that harm, and any harm that flows from it, can be remedied through backpay, reinstatement, or otherwise. The second form of harm flows from United’s decision to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions; that harm and that harm alone is irreparable and supports a preliminary injunction.
Judge Smith wrote a stinging 56-page dissent, saying in part:
In its alacrity to play CEO of a multinational corporation, the majority shatters every dish in the china shop. It rewrites Title VII to create a new cause of action. It twists the record to fit that invention. It defies our precedent and the commands of the Supreme Court. But this majority is no senseless bull. Knowing exactly what it has wrought, the majority declares that its unsigned writing will apply to these parties only. By stripping its judgment of precedential effect, the majority all but admits that its screed could not survive the scrutiny of the en banc court....
For every conceivable reason that the plaintiffs could lose this appeal, they should. The statute does not allow the relief they seek. Nor do our precedents; if they did, the Supreme Court has overruled them. If they have not been overruled, fifty years of precedent and centuries of Anglo-American remedies law show that preliminary relief may not issue. If it could issue, it shouldn’t, because the only plaintiffs with standing claim no harm from the “impossible choice” between full postjudgment relief and eternal damnation.
Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.
