Public Health Authority Case Updates for October, November, and December, 2022
October, 2022
Monday, October 31: A former county police officer in Pennsylvania sued Allegheny County, alleging he was discriminated against when he did not receive an exemption for the COVID-19 vaccination mandate.
Monday, October 31: The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit by a church against Maine Governor Mills for previous gathering limits, holding the claims are now moot. (Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, 2022 WL 16548315)
Thursday, Oct. 27: A California appeals court affirmed dismissal of Godspeak Calvary Chapel's claims against the County of Ventura for earlier gathering restrictions. The claims were dismissed as moot. (Godspeak Calvarly Chapel v. County of Ventura, 2022 WL 15170582 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022)).
Wednesday, Oct. 26: A private school in Petoskey, Michigan, had their claims dismissed for mootness after they challenged two orders from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services that prohibited in-person schooling in public and private high schools in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The orders have since expired and the Department of Health has not imposed similar orders since. (Saint Michael Academy v. Hertel, 2022 WL 14707052 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2022)).
Tuesday, October 25: 16 New York City sanitation workers who were fired for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine were reinstated and will receive back pay after a Staten Island Superior Court judge ruled that the city’s health commissioner does not have the power to establish new working conditions or to block a person from reporting to work. The mandate is still in effect for all those not part of the suit.
Wednesday, October 19: A federal court in Minnesota dismissed a lawsuit by an employee of the Minnesota Department of Human Services for the department’s vaccine mandate and its lack of religious exemption. The court held that the claim must be dismissed because the state cannot be sued under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) in federal courts. (Zarn v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2022 WL 11227241 (D. Minn. Oct. 19, 2022).
Thursday, October 20: A Texas state court dismissed a lawsuit by a group of bar owners who sued Governor Abbott for executive orders issued earlier in the pandemic that restricted the ability of people to patronize bars. The court dismissed the lawsuit as moot. (Stand for Something Group Live v. Abbott, 2022 WL 11485464 (Tex. App. Oct. 20, 2022).
Wednesday, October 19: A federal court in California struck Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 tenant protections as “unconstitutionally vague.” (Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. County of Los Angeles, 2022 WL 11237666 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022) News link
Monday, October 17: A federal court in Arizona dismissed a lawsuit by service members who were denied a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which is currently paused due to an August ruling by a Florida federal court (Colonel Financial Management Officer v. Austin, 2022 WL 3643512 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022). The court in Arizona dismissed the claim after determining that the service members in this case, and their sought remedies, were part of the CFMO class. (Short v. Berger, 2022 WL 10024222 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2022).
Thursday, October 13: A Washington, DC restaurant sued DC’s Department of Health and its former director, claiming that the department exceeded its authority when enacting mask and vaccine mandates earlier this year.
Tuesday, October 11: Three lawsuits involving St. Paul, Minnesota employees were dismissed after the city dropped its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Thursday, October 6: The Eleventh Circuit rejected Norwegian Cruise Line’s challenge to Florida’s “vaccine passports” law, which bars businesses from requiring customers to show proof they received a COVID-19 vaccine.
November, 2022
Tuesday, November 1: A federal court in Iowa ruled that school districts must be able to enact mask mandates, despite a state law banning mask mandates.
Wednesday, November 2: Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds appealed the district court ruling that allows school districts to impose mask mandates.
Wednesday, November 2: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments over whether a civilian Navy employee can challenge the vaccine mandate for federal workers in court or must first go through an administrative process.
Wednesday, November 2: A former Chicago bus operator sued the Chicago Transit Authority, alleging it infringed upon his religious beliefs when firing him for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccination.
Monday November 20th: The federal District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss against a teacher claiming wrongful termination after he refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. In Evans v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiff alleged that by terminating him for refusing the vaccine, the Department of Education turned vaccination status into a disability, and then discriminated against him on the basis of this disability. However, the District Court held that the case should be dismissed as moot because the vaccine mandate has since been rescinded, but did take the time to make clear that it found the plaintiff’s allegations did not state a claim for relief because vaccination status is not a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Neither was plaintiff perceived by the Department of Education as having a disability. Finally, resisting a vaccine mandate is not a protected activity under the ADA.
Monday November 20th: The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice two claims arising from a cancelled wedding in Schneider v. City of Chicago. The plaintiffs intended to marry in February 2022, at a time when the City of Chicago had a public health order in place prohibiting gatherings in large areas without either COVID-19 vaccination or proof of a prior religious or medical exemption to the vaccine. The plaintiffs had not received the vaccine due to their religious beliefs, and had no proof of religious exemption. They cancelled the wedding and lost their deposit. They then sued the City of Chicago under two state statutes, the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, claiming that the City’s vaccine mandate burdened their free exercise of religion by forcing them to choose between violating their religious beliefs or losing their deposit money. However, the court found that their free exercise rights were not burdened because the mandate included religious exemptions, and the plaintiffs made merely perfunctory efforts to obtain them.
December, 2022
Friday December 1st: Another challenge to Connecticut’s decision to repeal its religious exemption to its childhood vaccine mandate was dismissed by the Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut in Milford Christian Church v. Russell-Tucker. The plaintiffs included Milford Christian Church, two church employees, and a parishioner who wanted to send her child to the pre-school that the church operates. Plaintiffs argued that by disallowing religious exemptions, the state had infringed on their First Amendment Free Exercise rights by forcing them to either violate their religious beliefs and vaccinate their children, or not enroll them in school. Plaintiffs also argued that by forcing this choice on parents, the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause as well as their childrearing liberty interest were violated. However, the court found that We The Patriots USA Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development controlled the outcome, and held that the Connecticut law was neutral to religion and generally applicable, and therefore subject to rational basis review, rather than strict scrutiny.
Applying rational basis review, the court held that the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims failed because the state has a compelling government interest in protecting public health, and increasing the number of vaccinated children is rationally related to that goal. The court also followed the reasoning of We The Patriots USA regarding the Equal Protection claims, holding that the mandate does not classify based on religion. Instead, it differentiates between children who need medical exemptions and those who do not. Finally, the court held that parents’ liberty interest in child-rearing is not an independent fundamental right. Instead, it falls under the Free Exercise Clause. Therefore, because the plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim was dismissed, the child-rearing claim must be as well.
Monday December 4th: The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a teacher’s claim of religious discrimination after she was fired for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. In Bonilla v. City of New York, the plaintiff teacher was terminated by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) after her request for a religious exemption to the DOE’s vaccine mandate was denied. The plaintiff then sued, alleging her First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights had been violated. The court held that the DOE’s vaccination mandate for most employees was neutral to religion and generally applicable, and therefore only subject to rational review. While the plaintiff argued that the mandate was not generally applicable because DOE bus drivers were not included, the court held that Kane v. De Blasio, from the Second Circuit, had previously found the DOE vaccine mandate neutral and generally applicable, despite exempting categories of employees, including bus drivers, who did not spend as much time with students in enclosed spaces as teachers.
The plaintiff argued that the mandate failed rational review because the CDC conceded that the vaccine was ineffective at preventing COVID-19 infection and transmission. The court pointed out this simply wasn’t true. The CDC has stated that vaccination was the leading public health prevention strategy for COVID-19. Under rational basis review, the court held that the DOE’s vaccine mandate served a compelling purpose in providing a safe environment for students, and that allowing the plaintiff an exemption would have been an undue hardship by jeopardizing that safe environment.
Tuesday December 5th: The Federal District Court for the District of New Mexico further limited the New Mexico public health emergency-based ban on firearms in public in Springer v. Grisham. The ban, which has been attacked by numerous suits since first being implemented in September, initially used the governor’s power to declare public health emergencies to prohibit the carrying of firearms in all public spaces in certain cities in the state. However, after multiple preliminary injunctions won by gun rights activists shortly after passage, the ban only extended to playgrounds (and other places specifically meant for children) and public parks. However, the court here applied the Bruen test created by the Supreme Court in 2022 to find that there were no equivalent historical restrictions on firearms in public parks, and thus enjoined that aspect of the ban as well.
Thursday December 7th: New York’s First Department Appellate Division dismissed as moot a challenge to New York City’s extension of their COVID-19 vaccination mandate in New York City Municipal Labor Committee v. Adams. The plaintiffs appealed from a decision by the New York County Supreme Court declining to issue a preliminary injunction to halt New York City’s continued enforcement of its the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public employees after the city had rescinded the mandate for private employees. The appellate court held that the case was moot because the city had rescinded the public employee mandate in February 2023.
Monday December 11th: The Supreme Court granted cert to vacate and remand a trio of challenges to federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The three cases, Payne v. Biden, Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, and Doster v. Kendall, involved federal employees, federal contractors, and members of the military arguing that the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees was unconstitutional. In two of the three cases (Feds for Medical Freedom and Doster), preliminary injunctions were granted against the federal government’s mandates. The Justice Department sought vacatur of these decisions as part of an effort to roll back some of the changes to the law on public health power that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.