Wednesday, July 15, 2026

11th Circuit Rejects Claim That Covid Requirements Violated Employees' Religious Beliefs; Criticizes Counsel's Briefing

 In Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., (11th Cir., July 10, 2026), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by four employees of Atlas Air complaining about the company's policies on masks, testing and vaccination during the Covid pandemic. The court said in part:

The plaintiffs first allege that Atlas Air created a work environment hostile to their religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII.  They say that Atlas Air’s “repeated attempts to coerce” them into getting vaccinated constituted “unwelcomed harassment.”...

... [P]laintiffs do not allege any facts indicating that Atlas Air intended to discriminate against their religious beliefs.  In fact, the allegations suggest the opposite.  Under its policy, Atlas Air exempted from its vaccine requirement employees who professed a sincere religious objection to the Covid-19 vaccine.  Instead, they had to wear a mask at work and test once a month. The plaintiffs now seem to assert that these accommodations are also hostile to their religion.  The problem with this argument is that there is nothing to back it up in the pleadings....

... [W]e have saved the worst for last.  The plaintiffs’ counsel Anthony F. Sabatini’s filings are riddled with citations to nonexistent, “hallucinated” cases.  His opening brief relies on at least eight such cases, including one purportedly decided by this Court.  After the defendants identified this problem, Sabatini acknowledged in his (untimely) proposed reply brief that those citations were “erroneous or unverifiable,” and sought to withdraw his reliance on eight listed cases.  At this point, things go from bad to worse: the eight cases Sabatini “withdrew” did not match a single one of the eight hallucinated cases in his opening brief.  And not only were they not the right cases—all eight were also hallucinated....

Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence....

In a separate order, this Court, through the Chief Judge, will refer the matter to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.