DC Circuit Revives Contempt Proceedings in RFRA Suit Against Fire Department

In Calvert v. Potter, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the district court a suit by a group of D.C. firefighters who claim that the D.C. Fire Department violated an injunction issued in 2007 vindicating their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The injunction required the Department to allow firefighters who wore beards for religious reasons to work in field operations. However, 13 years later the situation became more complex, as the D.C. Circuit explained:

As COVID-19 spread in March 2020, the Department implemented a new facial hair policy and mandated the use of masks during patient contact. The Department transferred the four bearded firefighters it still employed to administrative roles “due to concerns about their ability to properly wear N95 respirators with facial hair.”...

The district court denied the motion for civil contempt.... The court declined to hold the Department in contempt because it “acted in a reasonably cautious way, under unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances, to keep plaintiffs and the public it served as safe as it could.”...

The Court of Appeals rejected the district court's conclusion: 

Good-faith compliance may be relevant to mitigation at the remedies stage, but the court lacks discretion to excuse civil contempt based on the contemnor’s good faith. ... 

The firefighters had a private right to enforcement of the original injunction, which protected their religious freedom and permanently forbade the Department from enforcing the 2005 facial hair policy against them. The district court had no general discretion to excuse civil contempt.... 

Instead, the court was required to determine whether the Department violated the firefighters’ rights under the 2007 injunction.... Even if the Department’s behavior was reasonable in light of the pandemic, good faith and lack of willfulness is not a defense to civil contempt....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Executive Orders Call for Military Reinstatement of Vaccine Objectors, Military Exclusion of Transgender Individuals

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military's Covid-19 Vaccination Mandate (full text). The Order reads in part:

The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.

The Executive Order calls for reinstatement with back pay for those who left the service rather than be vaccinated.  Many service members who refused vaccination did so on religious grounds.

Yesterday, the President also issued an Executive Order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness (full text) which ordered the military to revise its Medical Standards for Military Service to exclude transgender individuals from service in the military. The Executive Order reads in part:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member....

It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.  This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.  This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

Kansas Court Says Statute Sets Low Threshold for Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In St. Luke's Health System, Inc. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Schultz, (KS App., Jan. 17, 2025), a Kansas state appeals court held that under a Kansas statute, an employee's request for a religious exemption from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate does not require as much proof as the trial court in the case demanded.  The appeals court said in part:

The statute does not require the employee to articulate a basis for their sincerely held religious beliefs, nor does it require the employee to provide written evidence of those religious beliefs, as the district court held Glean was required to do. It only requires the employee to explain in a written statement that complying with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, which Glean did. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(a). And, in fact, the statute specifies:  "An employer shall grant an exemption requested in accordance with this section based on sincerely held religious beliefs without inquiring into the sincerity of the request." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(b)....

Not only did she [employee Sheryl Glean] explain that her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine is based on her religious views—as in she believes the vaccine may cause harm to her body—she clarified the religious basis for her concern (or why she believes getting the vaccine would be wrong) when she said since she became a Christian she believes the Bible tells her that her body is holy. See 1 Corinthians 6:19-20..... Glean further evidenced the religiosity of her beliefs when she stated that she had discussed her concerns about getting the vaccine with the pastor from her church. Glean's invocation of both the Bible and her pastor as sources of guidance in this matter evidence the religiosity of her beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.

1st Circuit Accepts Employer's Undue Hardship Defense for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccination

In Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc., (1st Cir., Jan. 17, 2025), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a Title VII lawsuit brought by a TV news photographer who asserted religious objections to his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The employer refused to provide an accommodation, asserting that it would impose an undue hardship. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim on the ground that his objection was not religious but instead reflected "a personal medical judgment about the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination" expressed in religious language. On appeal, the 1st Circuit held that it did not have to reach the issue of whether plaintiff's objections were religious because defendant had adequately carried its undue hardship defense. The court said in part:

Rodrique contends that Hearst has not proffered admissible evidence showing that the vaccine actually protects against the transmission of COVID-19.  As Rodrique frames the issue, if the vaccine does not reduce the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission -- as opposed to merely mitigating symptoms, for example -- then Hearst suffers no undue hardship by granting him an exemption.  And in Rodrique's view, only expert testimony can support this conclusion.,,,  

,,, [W]e disagree with Rodrique that Hearst did not provide legally sufficient evidence....  Because ... Hearst relied "on the objective, scientific information available to [it]," with particular attention to "the views of public health authorities," we hold that it acted reasonably when it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees.

Business Insurance reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: Covid Vaccine Religious Accommodation Suit Should Not Have Been Dismissed

 In Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services, (4th Cir., Jan. 7, 2025), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Title VII and state law claims by a former registered nurse who was denied a religious exemption or accommodation from her employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Barnett has sufficiently alleged her beliefs are religious in nature.  Specifically, Barnett alleged, amongst other things:  (1) “it would be sinful for her to engage with a product such as the vaccination after having been instructed by God to abstain from it”; (2) her “religious reasons for declining the covid vaccinations. . . were based on her ‘study and understanding of the Bible and personally directed by the true and living God’”; and (3) receiving the vaccine would be sinning against her body, which is a temple of God, and against God himself....  At this stage, these allegations are sufficient to show that Barnett’s “belief is an essential part of a religious faith” that “must be given great weight[,]” ... and are plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

EEOC Sues Employer for Refusal to Grant Religious Accommodation to Covid Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it had filed a Title VII lawsuit against the North Carolina-based Rex Healthcare, Inc. for refusing to grant a religious accommodation to an employee who objected to receiving the Covid vaccination.  According to the EEOC:

[I]n 2021 Rex Healthcare implemented a policy mandating that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination unless they were granted an exemption because of their religious beliefs or a disability. The charging party in the EEOC’s suit, who worked remotely, requested a religious exemption in accordance with the policy. Even though the employee had previously been granted an exemption from being required to take the flu vaccination based on her religious beliefs, the request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination was denied.

The employee submitted multiple follow up requests with additional explanations of her religious beliefs in support of her request. Despite the employee articulating a sincerely held religious belief, Rex Healthcare denied the employee’s accommodation requests and subsequently fired her for failing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Hospital Employee's Vaccine Objections Were Religious

In Lavelle-Hayden v. Employment Dept., (OR App., Dec. 18, 2024), an Oregon state appellate court held that a hospital respiratory therapist who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine requirement should receive unemployment benefits. It held that the state Employment Appeals Board's (EAB) conclusion that the employee's objection to the Covid vaccine was secular or personal in nature, rather than religious, was not supported by substantial evidence. The court said in part:

First, the EAB appears to have overlooked the Supreme Court’s injunction that tribunals ordinarily must refrain from assessing the plausibility of a claim of religious belief, and to have read the record with unreasonable parsimony in view of that standard....

Second, the EAB drew unreasonable inferences from the fact that claimant’s church declined to provide her a letter in support of her exemption request. The EAB inferred that “the fact that claimant’s own religious leader refused to provide a letter weighs to some extent against finding that claimant’s opposition to taking the vaccine was rooted in religion.” The EAB also inferred that the fact “that the leader told claimant it might be ‘too political to get involved’ supports an inference that when claimant asked for the letter, the religious leader regarded claimant’s objection to receiving a vaccine to be based on her political beliefs, not religion.”... But that reasoning ... presupposes that one’s religious beliefs and political beliefs are necessarily mutually exclusive....

... [T]here is no basis on which to sustain the denial of benefits that is consistent with the evidence and Free Exercise Clause.

Court Examines Sincerity and Religiosity of Vaccine Objections

Stynchula v. Inova Health Care Services, (ED VA, Nov. 19, 2024), is another of the dozens of cases working their way through the courts in which employees have asserted religious objections to Covid vaccine mandates, and their employers have refused to accommodate their objections on the ground that the employees' beliefs were either not religious or not sincerely held. Here the court examines objections asserted by two employees (Netko and Stynchula) and says in part:

Inova argues that Netko’s claim fails because his requests for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine requirement did not assert beliefs that he sincerely held. The Court agrees....

... Netko’s practice with respect to medicines and vaccines developed using fetal cell lines “[was] inconsistent. He puts some medicines in his body, but not others” and thus he has severely contradicted his assertion that he could not receive a COVID-19 vaccine without compromising his religious beliefs.....  

Netko rejects this conclusion in several ways, none of which is compelling. He argues that Inova cannot show that he subjectively knew of the involvement of fetal cells in the medications and vaccinations that he received, when he received them, and because “sincerity is a subjective question pertaining to the party’s mental state,” if Netko received them ignorant of the fact of fetal cell involvement, “that is not behavior that is markedly inconsistent with his stated beliefs.” ... But there is no rule that a subjective mental state cannot be proven by objective circumstantial evidence....

Netko also contends that his failure to consistently raise fetal cell objections is of no consequence because “a finding of sincerity does not require perfect adherence to beliefs expressed by the [plaintiff], and even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time.”... But for a self-declared life-long adherent of a belief, like Netko, such a principle does not mean that sincerity is evident when he strays one hundred percent of the time until one day, he ostensibly decides to outwardly manifest his belief.

... Netko’s assertion that his religion prevented him from taking such vaccines “appears to have been newly adopted only in response to the demand that [he] take the COVID-19 vaccine,”... which is consistent with his general hostility to authority with respect to the COVID pandemic as a whole....

Inova asserts that Stynchula’s claim must fail because her vaccine exemption requests reflect beliefs that are secular, rather than religious, in nature....

Stynchula has not presented facts that show her vaccine-related beliefs are religious....   She states that her fetal cell line objections are grounded in her Catholic upbringing, whereas she joined the Church of Scientology in 2001.... And, the connection between her Scientological beliefs and her vaccination objections is undeveloped except to the extent that she objected to COVID vaccinations as “foreign substances” on the basis of the “axiom” of “Self Determinism” ...  and the idea that “the spirit alone may save or heal the body”... But these simply “seek[] a religious objection to any requirement with which [Stynchula] disagrees” and do not concern religious beliefs.... They are, rather, “isolated moral teaching[s]” in lieu of a “comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters.”...

Relatedly, Stynchula’s statements and conduct “only reinforce[] that her opposition stems from her medical beliefs.” ... She believes that her “body is a gift from God” and objects to vaccinations because “[she] do[es] not believe in injecting foreign substances unless there is a therapeutic reason”... and because they would “impact [her] relationship with God” and “would be a sin, as it goes against [her] deeply felt convictions and the answers [she] ha[s] received in prayer”....

... Stynchula does not review medication and vaccine information with an eye towards religious mandates or prohibitions. That is, her search is not to ensure that a specific substance is not present in her medications, or that certain religious procedures have been followed. She simply engages in a cost-benefit analysis of vaccines and medications rooted in her personal concerns over their safety and efficacy. Attaching a gloss of “general moral commandment[s],” such as beliefs in personal liberty or that the body is a temple, to these concerns cannot alone render them religious.

Jury Questions Remain in Suit by Casino Worker Fired for Refusing Covid Vaccine

In Brown v. MGM Grand Casino, ( ED MI, Nov. 18, 2024), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant summary judgment for either party in a suit by a former warehouse manager for MGM Grand Casino who was fired for refusing to comply with his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. Plaintiff, an Orthodox Apostolic Christian, had applied for a religious accommodation. It was refused. According to the court:

Defendant expressed doubt about the sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious belief.... It also expressed doubt about whether Plaintiff’s belief is religious in nature or purely secular.... Nevertheless, Defendant determined that accommodating Plaintiff would impose an undue burden on Defendant’s operations and denied his request on those grounds....

Defendant cites many non-controlling cases from other Circuits for the proposition that Plaintiff’s objection to the vaccination policy based on his opposition to abortion fails to demonstrate a religious belief, because he does not tie it to a wider religious observance, practice, or outlook....However, the Court is not persuaded by the underlying logic of these cases. Of course, a plaintiff claiming a failure to accommodate is required to demonstrate a connection between their belief and some “religious principle” they follow.... But courts “may not question the veracity of one’s religious beliefs.” ... Thus, a plaintiff need not cite specific tenets of his religion that forbid the contested employment policy or explain how those tenets forbid it. ...

While Plaintiff has demonstrated that his beliefs are religious, it is another question whether his beliefs are sincere....  [T]he factfinder need not take a plaintiff at his word.” ... Defendant has raised several reasons to question Plaintiff’s sincerity, such as the fact that his religious reasoning was not consistent throughout his accommodation request process or in his deposition, or the fact that he described medical reasons for wanting to avoid the vaccine....

Therefore, the Court concludes that material questions of fact remain as to whether Plaintiff has a sincerely held religious belief.

The court also concluded that the employer's undue hardship defense posed a jury question since, among other things, large numbers of workers under collective bargaining agreements were not vaccinated.

2nd Circuit Remands Two Plaintiffs' Claims for Improper Denial of Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandate

New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York, (2d Cir., Nov. 13, 2024), is a decision on appeals of two cases challenging denials of religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff.  While affirming the dismissal of many of the claims, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated dismissals of claims by two plaintiffs, Natasha Solon and Heather Clark, and remanded their cases to the district court. The court said in part:

If Solon’s initial, denied exemption application reflected her purely personal religious practices, then she has plausibly pleaded that she was improperly denied an accommodation because the old Arbitration Award Standards only allowed “exemption requests . . . for recognized and established religious organizations,” and did not honor exemptions for those whose “religious beliefs were merely personal.” ...  That could present a First Amendment problem.,,,

... [T]he documents Clark submitted ... describe a religious objection to the vaccine because it is a product of development using fetal cell lines and a “differing substance[]” that she may not ingest consistent with her faith....  Nevertheless, the district court dismissed Clark’s claim because “the [Citywide] panel found that her decision to not receive a vaccin[e] was not based on her religious belief, but rather, on nonreligious sources,” a conclusion the district court deemed “entirely proper . . . under Title VII.”... While such a conclusion could indeed be proper and constitutional if the Citywide Panel had a basis for reaching it, Clark’s allegations support the plausible inference that the Panel denied her request solely on the basis of its characterization of her religious objection as too idiosyncratic rather than as not sincerely held or non-religious in nature. 

Given this possibility, Clark has stated a cognizable as-applied claim at this stage.

Court Asks Parties for More Information on Whether Vaccine Mandate Was Generally Applicable

In Rodriguez v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, (ND CA, Nov. 12, 2024), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought by employees of a public transportation provider who were denied religious exemptions from their employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether or not the vaccine mandate exemption process was generally applicable in order to determine whether to apply strict scrutiny in evaluating plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim. The court said in part:

Although the VTA’s exemption review process did not involve the entirely unfettered discretion that the Supreme Court rejected in Fulton, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that this process contained enough individualized discretion to “permit discriminatory treatment of religion or religiously motivated conduct.” ...

Conversely, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the exemption process was “tied directly to limited, particularized, business-related, objective criteria” such that it was generally applicable.....  Unlike Fulton, no individual here exercised “sole discretion.”....  Instead, the committee rendered decisions as a group based on set criteria.... A reasonable jury could find that the VTA committee exercised a degree of discretion that preserved the policy’s general applicability.

IT Specialist Awarded $12.69M For Denied Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

 A Michigan federal district court jury last week awarded damages of $12,690,000 to an IT specialist who was fired from her position after she refused for religious reasons to comply with her employer's Covid vaccine mandate. In Domski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, (ED MI, Nov. 8, 2024) (Jury Form), plaintiff contended that her Catholic religious beliefs precluded her from complying because of the use of fetal cells in the development of the Covid vaccines. Plaintiff had been employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield for 38 years. Law Enforcement Today and WWJ Radio report on the jury verdict.

Firefighters Can Move Ahead With Title VII Claims Over Forced Leave to Accommodate Religious Objections to Covid Vaccine

In Bingham v. City of San Jose, (CA App., Oct. 30, 2024), a California state appeals court held that five San Jose firefighters who were placed on unpaid leave when they asserted religious objections to the Covid vaccine may move ahead with their claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit, the appeals court held in part:

Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the extended and involuntary unpaid leave allegedly imposed on them was not a reasonable accommodation.  By not requiring plaintiffs to take the COVID-19 vaccines mandated by the County vaccination order, the City eliminated the conflict between the order and plaintiffs’ religious beliefs concerning the COVID-19 vaccines.  However, the alleged unpaid leave did not reasonably preserve plaintiffs’ employment status....

... [T]he amended complaint alleges that the City Fire Department was facing a severe staffing shortage and that a County public health order allowed employers facing such shortages to seek a waiver of the vaccination requirement.  Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that they could have been transferred to positions answering 911 calls, which presumably is not a Higher-Risk Setting and therefore would not have required vaccination under the County vaccination order.  If these allegations are accepted as true, as they must be at the demurrer stage... that would have allowed plaintiffs to work without a vaccination.  Thus, far from establishing the City’s undue hardship defense, the face of the complaint shows that the City could have reasonably accommodated plaintiffs’ beliefs without undue hardship. 

CBN reports on the decision.

Hospital Employee Who Refused Covid Nasal Swab Testing Is Entitled to Unemployment Benefits

 In St. Luke's University Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (PA Commonw. Court, Nov. 1, 2024), a Pennsylvania state appellate court upheld a decision by the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that a former employee of plaintiff hospital was entitled to unemployment benefits because her objections to Covid testing, which led to her firing, were religious. The hospital required all its employees to either obtain a Covid vaccination or, if they were granted a religious exemption, to undergo weekly nasal swab Covid testing. Employee Christine Puello objected to swab testing, contending in part:

Inserting a nasal swab with contaminants into my body violates my conscience and my sincerely held religious beliefs as I have previously described in my religious exemptions.  I am willing to submit my saliva under observation for weekly COVID[-19] testing which eliminates any invasiveness and preserves my dignity of one less object/contaminant entering my body.

The court concluded:

While Claimant did cite safety concerns as a secondary reason for refusing nasal swab testing, the record makes clear that her primary objection was religious and not secular in nature.  The Board credited Claimant’s testimony that this method of testing was prohibited by the tenets of her religion and determined she had good cause to refuse it.

Lufthansa Fined $4M For Discrimination Against Jewish Passengers Flying On Pilgrimage To Hungary

On Oct. 7, a Consent Cease-and-Desist Order (full text) was issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation imposing civil penalties of $4 million on the air carrier Lufthansa for religious discrimination against Jewish passengers traveling to Budapest in 2022 to participate in the annual pilgrimage to the shrine of the so-called "miracle rabbi" Yeshaya Steiner (known as Rabbi Shayele). (Background). The airline received a credit for $2 million that it had already paid to passengers.

Some 128 identifiably Orthodox Jewish passengers were on a flight from New York, with a connection in Frankfurt to go on to Budapest. They were all barred from boarding the connecting flight in Frankfurt after some 60 of the passengers refused on the first leg of the flight to comply with the Covid-related requirement to wear masks on the flight and some also gathered in aisles and near exits. The DOT Consent Order said in part:

Lufthansa’s decision to affix an HPC [High Priority Comment] to the reservations of nearly every passenger traveling in a group to Budapest without limiting such affixation to those passengers who Lufthansa verified failed to follow crew instructions on LH 401, which did not comport with Lufthansa’s own boarding procedures, directly resulted in the inability of the passengers to travel on the flights they purchased. As such, Lufthansa took action that had an adverse effect on these passengers whose only affiliation with each other was that they were of the same religion and/or ethnicity. 

Lufthansa’s actions impacted passengers who did not engage in problematic conduct. OACP finds that, under the totality of the circumstances, Lufthansa’s treatment of the 128 Jewish passengers as a collective group, based on the alleged misconduct of a smaller number of those individuals, constitutes discrimination based on religion in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 40127.

DOT issued a press release announcing the Consent Order. AP reported on the Consent Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

6th Circuit Finds That Employee's Objections to Covid Testing Were Not Religious

 In DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, (6th Cir., Oct. 11, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by a former department manager at the University of Kentucky who was denied a religious accommodation that would exempt her from the University's policy that required weekly testing of employees who were not vaccinated against Covid. Plaintiff filed a suit claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. She alleged in part that the University's policy was designed to coerce her to get tested. the court said:

Such coercion, she explained, was “wrong” because “[t]rying to manipulate somebody into doing something to attain a result that you want by holding something over them” is “not right behavior.”...

DeVore drew no connection between her fairness conclusion and any “religious principle” she follows, leaving it simply to reflect her “personal moral code.”... DeVore’s “subjective evaluation” of the Policy against this rubric of “secular values” does not establish a religious conflict with the Policy.

Certiorari Denied in Dispute Over Standing to Challenge Covid Restrictions on Churches

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Grace Bible Fellowship v. Polis, (Docket No. 24-226, certiorari denied 10/15/2024). (Order List). (Certiorari petition). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (10th Circuit opinion) held that plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain prospective declaratory relief in their challenge to Colorado's authority to impose public health restrictions on houses of worship.

Air Force Officers' Suit Over Vaccine Mandate Is Now Moot

Still working their way through the courts are dozens of cases brought by employees or former employees who were denied religious exemptions from Covid vaccine mandates. One of the more interesting is Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, Oct. 11, 2024), a class action suit on behalf of Air Force officers who were denied religious exemptions from the military's Covid vaccine mandate. The mandate has been rescinded by the military after Congress ordered it to do so. At issue in the case is whether the lawsuit is now moot. Plaintiffs made two basic arguments against mootness. One is that the government has not shown that the mandate will not be reimposed at some later time. The second is that plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that applies to exemptions from all military vaccine mandates, not just Covid vaccine requirements.  The court rejected both claims. The court said in part:

Understandably so, Plaintiffs and Defendants just disagree whether there is no reasonable expectation that “the same kind of COVID-19 vaccination requirement will be reinstated,” but it can’t be overlooked that “for almost two years now” there hasn’t been any indication that the COVID-19 vaccination mandates will be reinstated. In this Court’s opinion, that’s quite persuasive....

Disclosure of Covid Status to Plaintiff's Pastor Did Not Infringe Privacy or Free Exercise Rights

In Fulmore v. City of Englewood, (NJ App., Aug. 30, 2024), a New Jersey appellate court dismissed a suit brought by an employee of the city's Department of Public Works who contended that his rights were violated when, early in the Covid pandemic, the city's health officer disclosed to plaintiff's pastor that plaintiff was supposed to be under quarantine because of exposure to Covid. Plaintiff, who was an associate minister at a Baptist church, had participated in an in-person recording of a religious service without disclosing to other participants that he was supposed to be in quarantine. the court said in part:

Here, plaintiff's claim that Fedorko violated his constitutional right to privacy when he disclosed plaintiff's quarantine status to Pastor Taylor is unavailing.  Fedorko's disclosure to Pastor Taylor occurred on April 10, 2020, in the context of a public health emergency, where COVID-19 "created an immediate and ongoing public health emergency that require[d] swift action to protect not only the City's employees, but the public they [were] hired to serve....

... "Given the scientifically undisputed risk of spreading this deadly virus," defendants' interest in protecting the public health from potential exposure to COVID-19 outweighed plaintiff's privacy interest in his quarantine status....

Rejecting plaintiff's claim that his religious free exercise rights were violated, the court said in part:

Here, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the record is devoid of evidence indicating that Fedorko's disclosure of plaintiff's quarantine status to Pastor Taylor had a "coercive effect" on plaintiff's religious practice....

... At his deposition, plaintiff testified that defendants' actions "changed [his] whole religious belief" and his "whole outlook on church."  He claimed defendants "ruined the relationship" he had had with Pastor Taylor "for the last [twenty-eight] years."...

However, plaintiff acknowledged that since the April 2020 incident, he had not been "barred" from church, nor had he ever received any "texts or messages [from Pastor Taylor] . . . saying [he was not] welcome at the church" or that Pastor Taylor "did[ not] want [plaintiff] to preach there anymore."

Claim That Deprioritizing Religious Vaccine Exemption Requests Violates Title VII Moves Ahead

 In Desmarais v. Granholm, (D DC, Aug. 16, 2024), a D.C. federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII complaint by a Department of Energy employee that his request for a religious exemption from the Department's Covid vaccine mandate was given lower priority than requests for medical exemptions. The court said in part:

 Of course, there could well be a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for such a policy—but that is an inquiry for summary judgment, not for a motion to dismiss.  The court therefore concludes that Mr. Desmarais has plausibly alleged a causal connection between his protected characteristic and DOE’s decision to put his accommodation request “on hold.”