Public Health Authority Case Updates for October, November, and December, 2023
October, 2023
Tuesday October 31st: A lawsuit was filed in the federal District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the state’s childhood vaccine mandate for not allowing religious exemptions. Royce v. Bonta was brought by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, an anti-vaccine advocacy group, alleging that the state’s law violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because there are secular, but not religious, exceptions to the vaccine mandate. The complaint also argues that some other state-sponsored activities, like sports camps and public library programs, do not require proof of vaccination, and therefore the state already allows for contact between vaccinated and non-vaccinated and is irrationally singling out schools.
Friday October 27th: The Supreme Court of Texas dismissed as moot two challenges to COVID-era anti-public health authority executive orders in State v. San Antonio Independent School District and Abbott v. City of El Paso. The litigation in San Antonio Independent School District arose when the local school district implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees, despite the Texas governor’s executive order expressly banning such mandates. Abbott v. City of El Paso similarly involved a local government enforcing a COVID-19 mitigation measure (in this case a mask mandate) despite state government attempts to prevent it from doing so. In both cases, the governor’s executive order was issued under the Texas Disaster Act, and in both cases the Texas Court of Appeals held that the governor’s exercise of power was invalid. However, the Texas Supreme Court held that the cases were now moot because the challenged executive orders have been replaced by laws passed by the legislature. In addition to mooting the cases, the opinions siding with the municipalities from the Texas Court of Appeals were vacated.
Monday, October 23rd: The District Court of Connecticut heard arguments on a motion to dismiss in a case looking to overturn Connecticut’s phasing out of religious exemptions to its childhood vaccine mandate. The complaint, brought by a church-operated preschool, is funded by the same anti-vaccine group that backed a nearly identical case dismissed by the Second Circuit in August, We The Patriots USA. As in the previous case, the plaintiffs allege that the mandate violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Tuesday October 17th: The federal District Court of Maryland granted a partial motion to dismiss in a case over AstraZeneca’s employee COVID-19 vaccine mandate in Foshee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. The plaintiffs, nine former employees of AstraZeneca, alleged that the company violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act in refusing to grant them religious exemptions and subsequently firing them for refusing to comply with the vaccine policy. The court held that dismissal was appropriate for two of the plaintiffs given that their religious beliefs were instead primarily rooted in secular beliefs on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and therefore not protected under Title VII. The ADA claims for all plaintiffs were dismissed, with the court holding that unvaccinated status did not qualify as a disability for the purposes of the ADA.
Tuesday October 17th: In Sarsak v. Frontier Electronic Systems, the federal District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma allowed a case to proceed alleging a man was improperly fired in violation of Title VII for refusing to comply with his employer’s masking and temperature check requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that the plaintiff, Sarsak, had sufficiently supported his claim of religious beliefs against masking and temperature checks specifically, despite fears of future, more invasive, measures also being expressed as motivation in the complaint.
Tuesday, October 17th: The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the state governor’s emergency powers, in Snell v. Walz. The case was originally filed by business owners alleging the governor did not have the power to declare a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic under the state’s Emergency Management Act of 1996 and therefore the mask mandates issued as part of the emergency were invalid. The Minnesota Court of Appeals previously decided in July that public health emergencies, like COVID-19, qualified as natural disasters and the governor acted within the statute in declaring the emergency.
Wednesday, October 16th: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a school mask mandate case in R.M. v. Mumin. The plaintiffs, parents of school-aged children, initially filed suit claiming that their local school districts lacked the authority to implement mask requirements to attend school after the state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic ended. However, the court did not address this question, instead dismissing the case for mootness because the mask mandate has since been rescinded.
Wednesday October 11th: The federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida allowed a case alleging Title VII violations to proceed in Ciavardone v. Raytheon Technologies. Plaintiff, Ciavardone, was provisionally granted a religious exemption to her employer, Raytheon’s, COVID-19 vaccine mandate, given that she masked and tested weekly. However, Ciavardone alleged that Raytheon denied her request to take saliva tests rather than nasal swabs, because they wanted to terminate her for her religious beliefs. The court held that Ciavardone had included adequate information in her suit to allow this claim to proceed, though an additional wrongful termination claim was dismissed.
Thursday October 12th: The First District Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the dismissal of case that alleged a nurse was improperly fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine in Lenz v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp. The plaintiff alleged her employer violated the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act (IHRCA), which prohibits workplace discrimination for refusing medical services contrary to a person’s conscience, by terminating her when she still did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine after her religious exemption was denied. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s holding that the hospital’s policy did not violate the IHRCA because the statute includes an exception for policies intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Tuesday October 10th: In Caspersen v. Western Union, the federal District Court of Colorado granted in part a motion to dismiss, while leaving an employee’s claim that Western Union violated his Title VII rights. The employee, Caspersen, alleged he was improperly placed on leave and subsequently fired after his religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine was denied. The court held that the plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to allow his claim regarding denial of reasonable accommodation to move forward, but dismissed his second claim for being functionally identical to the first claim.
Friday, October 6th: The First Circuit reversed a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in Brox v. Woods Hole. The suit was brought by several employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority who claimed that the Authority’s failure to grant them religious exemptions to the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and decision to place them on unpaid suspension violated the First Amendment. The First Circuit held that the district court incorrectly assessed the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success and also improperly relied on that flawed reasoning over the other relevant factors.
Monday October 2nd: The Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgement in Bezzina v. United Airlines. The plaintiff, Bezzina, was placed on unpaid leave after his request for a medical accommodation from United’s mask mandate was denied. The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court erroneously relied on United’s assertion alone that a face shield with a drape would not have been adequate for Bezzina to safely work, instead of also considering outside evidence.
November, 2023
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.
Tuesday November 14th: New York’s First Department Appellate Division upheld a decision by the New York County Supreme Court dismissing the petition of a teacher who alleged religious discrimination after she was fired for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In Lynch v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, the First Department affirmed that the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel that denied the plaintiff a religious accommodation did not act arbitrarily or capriciously because there was enough evidence to show that either masking, testing, and social distancing or teaching remotely would impose an undue hardship on the Department of Education.
Monday November 13th: The United States Supreme Court declined to review a New Jersey COVID-19 booster shot state mandate for health care workers in Sczesny v. Murphy. In dismissing the appeal, the Court let stand the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s finding that the appeal was moot, as the state mandate was rescinded before the matter was resolved. The case was appealed from a decision by the federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, which denied four nurses’ application for a preliminary injunction alleging that the mandate violated their fundamental right to bodily integrity. The District Court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, citing Jacobson, as well as the history of judicial support for similar mandates for healthcare workers.
Monday November 13th: The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a proposed class action by teachers who were fired for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. In Broecker v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiff teachers claimed the New York City Department of Education violated their due process rights when it suspended and fired them for not complying with their vaccine mandate. However, the federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that the Department of Education’s process was sufficient. The teachers had the opportunity to seek vaccine exemptions before they were fired. They also had the opportunity to contest their firing through arbitration, and New York law provides state courts review of state executive action.
Monday November 6th: In Snyder v. Chicago Transit Authority, the federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part a motion to dismiss in a vaccine religious exemption case. Snyder, an employee of the Chicago Transit Authority, refused to comply with the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and was terminated after his religious exemption was denied. After he was fired, he sued, alleging that the Transit Authority violated Title VII, the Due Process Clause, the Illinois equivalent to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and various other state and federal statutes. The court dismissed most of these claims, but allowed the Title VII and Illinois RFRA claims to proceed, holding that Snyder had informed the Transit Authority of his religious objection to the vaccine and the Transit Authority fired Snyder for violating their vaccine requirement, which was sufficient to state a claim for relief.
Friday November 3rd: The federal District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a suit by an employee who was fired for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine after her religious exemption was denied in Bobadilla v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. Bobadilla claimed that by firing her after declining to accommodate her religious beliefs by letting her work remotely, the hospital violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as other Constitutional provisions, including the Free Exercise Clause and the Due Process Clause. The court held that the hospital did not violate Title VII because no reasonable accommodation would permit Bobadilla to perform the essential functions of her job and granting Bobadilla a religious exemption would have violated New York’s vaccination mandate for health care workers, causing the employer undue hardship. Additionally, the hospital’s vaccine mandate was generally applicable, regardless of religion, served a compelling purpose, and therefore did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Finally, the vaccine policy and religious exemption process were clearly communicated to Bobadilla, eliminating the Due Process claim.
Wednesday November 1st: An anti-vaccine lobbying group filed suit in the federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging Philadelphia’s policy of allowing some minors to consent to vaccination without parental approval in Children’s Health Defense v. City of Philadelphia. The policy, first enacted in 2007 by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, allows minors aged eleven and older to receive vaccinations after being provided with an information sheet on the vaccine, with or without parental approval. The suit alleges that this policy does not adequately ensure informed consent. The suit also alleges that the policy violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of Freedom of Religion and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by infringing on the parental rights regarding the vaccinated children.
December, 2023
Thursday December 28th: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed the recent Supreme Court directive stemming from Payne v. Biden, Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, and Doster v. Kendall by dismissing as moot Mayes v. Biden and vacating a lower order granting a permanent injunction on the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for contractors.
Tuesday December 26th: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Connecticut’s governor has qualified immunity in a case against Connecticut’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public school teachers. In Bellatoni v. Lamont the plaintiff school teachers argued that the governor had “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and wantonly violated [their] constitutional rights” by mandating the vaccine when that vaccine does not, in fact, protect public health. However, the court held that public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the violation of federal law or constitutional right was clearly established at the time the public official acted. The court had never held that vaccine mandates were unconstitutional, and the question of the vaccine’s effectiveness was one for state policy makers based on the scientific evidence. Because of this well-established case law allowing state and local governments to institute vaccine mandates, the governor was not unreasonable in assuming he was not violating the Constitution in doing so.
Friday December 22nd: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision in favor of Washington’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for state employees in Pilz v. Inslee. The suit was brought by several former employees who were terminated after their medical or religious exemption requests were denied. They argued that Washington violated their Free Exercise Rights under the First Amendment and their rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, as well as bringing various claims under the state constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the mandate did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the law was neutral on its face in applying to all employees and provided a system for exemptions. The plaintiffs did not challenge the law as applied, so this rational review was sufficient. The court also decided that the Fourth Amendment privacy claim was forfeited because the appellants did not continue the argument on appeal.
Friday December 22nd: The federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed as moot a challenge to the CDC’s COVID-era mask mandate for the transportation industry. In Carlin v. CDC, 10 airline pilots filed suit alleging that the mask mandate was unlawful. However, the case was stayed shortly after filing when a Florida judge vacated the mask mandate nationwide in April 2022. In May 2023 the federal government declared an end to the public health emergency and automatically lifted the mask mandate order. As a result, the 11th Circuit vacated the Florida decision and ordered the presiding judge to dismiss the case as moot, after which the litigation in Carlin resumed. The plaintiffs in Carlin argued that the case fell within two mootness exceptions and should continue despite the mask mandate being eliminated. However, the court found that neither exception applied because there was no current indication that a mask mandate will be reinstated and it is too speculative to assume that the exact same controversy will arise in the future.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.