January, 2023
Litigation Update January 20, 2023
Litigation Update January 27, 2023
Friday, 1/13: A New York judge struck the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.
Tuesday, 1/17: The Eleventh Circuit heard arguments in the government’s appeal of a Florida judge’s ruling striking the CDC’s transportation mask mandate.
Tuesday, 1/17: The Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to Chicago's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for city employees.
Wednesday, 1/18: Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced her official support for a state ban on mask mandates by public entities.
Wednesday, 1/25: A federal judge in California blocked AB 2098, a California law designating dissemination of COVID-19 disinformation by doctors unprofessional conduct subject to discipline, calling the law "unconstitutionally vague."
Thursday, 1/26: The Arkansas Supreme Court vacated a ruling that declared a ban on mask mandates unconstitutional.
Friday, 1/27: The Texas Supreme Court agreed to consider challenges to Governor Abbott’s ban on mask mandates.
Monday, 1/30: New York parents sued the Riverhead Central School District in Long Island, New York, claiming the district’s mask requirements caused their children “emotional distress.”
Tuesday, 1/31: Unvaccinated Navy personnel claim they are still facing discrimination even after the military COVID-19 vaccine mandate was lifted. The Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments Monday, 2/6.
February, 2023
Litigation Update February 3, 2023
Litigation Update February 10, 2023
Litigation Update February 17, 2023
Litigation Update February 24, 2023
Monday, 2/6: The Fifth Circuit heard arguments in a Navy vaccine mandate case. Although the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate has been withdrawn, the unvaccinated service members argue they still face potential discipline.
Tuesday, 2/7: A California judge dismissed a lawsuit by Los Angeles County employees over the county’s vaccine mandate for employees.
Wednesday, 2/8: The Minnesota Supreme Court partially reversed an appeals court’s dismissal of a lawsuit over state COVID-19 measures, holding that the question of Governor Walz’s use of the Emergency Management Act is not moot.
Friday, 2/10: A federal judge in Montana ruled that the state's law barring discrimination based on vaccine status is unconstitutional as applied to healthcare settings.
Monday, 2/13: Thousands of New York City teachers denied COVID-19 vaccine exemptions filed a lawsuit against the city in state court.
Wednesday, Feb. 22: The California Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court's decision barring school districts from issuing vaccine mandates.
Wednesday, Feb. 22: The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Gov. Greg Abbott's executive order barring cities and counties from issuing mask mandates.
Tuesday, 2/27: A New York State Appeals Court issued a stay keeping New York's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health workers in place while litigation proceeds. The stay temporarily halts enforcement of a January ruling from state Supreme Court Judge Gerard Neri, which struck down the mandate. The Appeals Court set a deadline of March 20 for finalizing the appeal filing.
March, 2023
Litigation Update March 3, 2023
Litigation Update March 24, 2023
Litigation Update March 31, 2023
Friday, 3/17: The Michigan Supreme Court said it will hear a gym's claim that the state's pandemic orders leading to the gym's temporary closing constituted a government taking.
Tuesday, 3/21: A Third Circuit panel heard arguments in a challenge to New Jersey's vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.
Tuesday, 3/21: The DC Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a Navy employee's challenge to the federal employee vaccine mandate, ruling that he challenge it through the Civil Service Reform Act process.
Tuesday, 3/21: A group of servicemembers challenging the Air Force's rejection of religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate filed a motion stating their claims were not moot even though the mandate has since been rescinded, arguing they could still face repercussions.
Thursday, 3/24: The Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision blocking the federal employee vaccine mandate, finding the case was not barred by the Civil Service Reform Act and thus the district court did have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Tuesday, 3/28: The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents challenging a school district’s policy requiring unvaccinated students to quarantine if exposed to the virus, holding the policy violated a state statute prohibiting schools from requiring students receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend school.
Thursday, 3/30: The Massachusetts Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the city of Boston had the authority to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for city workers without first bargaining with union groups.
April, 2023
Litigation Update April 7, 2023
Litigation Update April 14, 2023
Litigation Update April 21, 2023
Litigation Update April 28, 2023
Monday, April 3: A federal judge in Texas blocked HHS’s rule requiring Head Start programs to implement COVID-19 vaccine mandates for staff and volunteers.
Monday, April 3: The Supreme Court declined to hear a Mississippi tanning salon’s challenge to a city order closing businesses at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Monday, April 10: The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in a case surrounding Seattle's COVID-19 eviction moratorium.
Tuesday, April 11: The San Diego City Council agreed to pay out $110,000 to settle two lawsuits challenging the city's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for city employees.
Wednesday, April 12: The Fourth Circuit ruled that excluding unvaccinated people from a Virginia jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Tuesday, April 25: The Arizona Legislature filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court, challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision that the federal contractor COVID-19 vaccine mandate was within President Biden's authority.
Thursday, April 27: The Buffalo City School District settled with the parents of a 6th grader over the district's mask mandate for an undisclosed amount.
Thursday, April 27: The Washington Supreme Court ruled that school board members could be subject to recall after disregarding the statewide mask mandate by voting to make masks optional in Richland schools.
May, 2023
Litigation Update May 12, 2023
Litigation Update May 19, 2023
Litigation Update May 26, 2023
Tuesday, May 9: The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether a woodworking company could be held liable for negligence by an employee's wife who says she became seriously ill when her husband contracted COVID-19 at work and passed it to her.
Thursday, May 11: Former Washington State University football coach Nick Rolovich asked a federal judge to allow his case against the university to continue after he was fired for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Thursday, May 11: A federal court in Illinois ruled that a man who withdrew from a cardiac sonography program after his request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine requirement was denied has standing to sue for violation of his right to religious freedom.
Thursday, May 11: Kansas Governor Laura Kelly blocked a proposed legal settlement with a Wichita gym over COVID-19 business closures.
Monday, May 15: A 9th Circuit panel reinstated a lawsuit challenging San Francisco's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees.
Tuesday, May 16: The 2nd Circuit dismissed a New York City Police Department detective's challenge to the city's COVID-19 vaccine mandate as moot.
Tuesday, May 16: A federal court in South Carolina dismissed a challenge to the DOD's rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandate as moot. (Clements v. Austin, 2023 WL 3479466)
Tuesday, May 23: The Justice Department asked the Eleventh Circuit to vacate an April 2021 ruling that struck the government's order requiring masks on airplanes and other transportation modes, saying the issue was now moot because the national COVID-19 emergency was now over.
Thursday, May 25: The First Circuit revived claims that Maine's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers is unconstitutional because it lacks a religious exemption, saying it was plausible that Maine had no justification to bar exemptions on religious grounds while allowing them for medical reasons.
Tuesday, May 30: A federal judge in Washington rejected former Washington State University football coach Nick Rolovich's claim that the university discriminated against his religious beliefs when he was fired for refusing to comply with the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Three of his other claims will go to trial, including for breach of contract.
June, 2023
Litigation Update June 2, 2023
Litigation Update June 23, 2023
Thursday, June 1: A Georgia federal judge dismissed Republican states' challenge to the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal contractors, approving a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by Georgia and six other states, the Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. trade group and the U.S. government.
Monday, June 19: North Carolina’s Health and Human Services Secretary filed a reply brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court. Racetrack owners seek money damages due to business closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Tuesday, June 20: A federal court in New York dismissed a claim by a Westchester Community College employee who sued the college over its COVID-19 vaccine-or-test policy, holding she failed to state a claim for discrimination or retaliation under the ADA. (Newell v. State University of New York Westchester Community College, 2023 WL 4082030)
Wednesday, June 21: A federal court in Missouri allowed much of a lawsuit to go forward in which current and former employees of the St. Louis Public School District claimed its COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated free speech rights.
Thursday, June 22: The 11th Circuit vacated the April 2022 decision that struck the CDC transportation mask mandate, declaring the issue moot as President Biden ended the public health emergency in May.
Monday, June 26: The Ninth Circuit held that the County of Marin's restriction of recreational flights during the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate a seaplane operator's equal protection rights. The court also vacated the preemption order and dismissed the company's request for declaratory relief as moot. (Seaplane Adventures v. County of Marin, 2023 WL 4169608
July, 2023
Litigation Update July 14, 2023
Litigation Update July 21, 2023
Litigation Update July 28, 2023
Monday, 7/10: In Green Bay, Wisconsin, a lawsuit was settled between the Republican National Committee and the Green Bay City Clerk, Celestine Jeffreys. The issue at hand was that the city allowed election observers to have access to early voting during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the court favored the city.
Monday, July 10: Following a remand from the United States Supreme Court in 2021, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found for members of the Amish community in Mast v. County of Fillmore. Appellants challenged the county and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for the county’s ordinance based on MPCA rules for subsurface sewage treatment systems. The county had provided local standards for the Amish, which appellants claimed infringed on their rights to religious exercise in violation of the state and federal constitutions, along with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The state appeals court agreed that the county had a compelling interest in preventing water contamination, but the record evidence did not support the lower court’s ruling that MPCA’s requirement furthered a compelling interest specific to the appellants, as required under RLUIPA.
Tuesday, 7/11: The Maine Department of Health and Human Services has proposed removing the COVID-19 vaccine from the list of required immunizations for health care workers. Currently, a lawsuit has been filed by workers against the state of Maine for removing this requirement.
Wednesday, 7/12: Magistrate Judge Patricia Dodge decided to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in Ulery v. Jackson-Decarcia. This case involved a Pennsylvania employee who claimed that a COVID-19 paid leave incentive plan discriminated against those who are unvaccinated.
Wednesday, July 12: A lawsuit brought by employees of a county-run hospital in Ohio over a vaccine mandate was dismissed by the district court. MetroHealth required employees to be vaccinated for COVID-19 with health and religious exemptions. Plaintiffs argued that the policy discriminated against them based on religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, free exercise, and state law. The District Court found that the former employees had failed to state claims against MetroHealth.
Thursday, July 13: The Sixth Circuit upheld Michigan State University’s requirement that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 in Norris v. Stanley. Plaintiffs, employees of the university, refused to be vaccinated based on natural immunity, and argued that the policy violated their constitutional rights and moreover, was preempted by federal law. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of all claims.
Friday, July 21: A district court, in Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, issued an injunction in January 2022 to block mandatory vaccinations for federal workers. This plaintiff has also filed three lawsuits in 2023 concerning the Navy, State Department, and Department of Justice’s vaccine policies. The federal government now has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to dismiss the case.
Monday, July 24: In Missouri v. Biden, two states, Missouri and Louisiana, and four individual defendants sued White House employees and several federal agencies for suppressing the plaintiff’s speech on social media platforms. A motion to consolidate this case with Kennedy v. Biden, which dealt with the same claims, was contested by an individual plaintiff. The court ruled the cases should be consolidated because the issues are substantively similar, and consolidation will promote judicial efficiency.
Tuesday, July 25: A lawsuit, T&V Associates v. Director of Health and Human Services, involving 125 small businesses against Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services is pending an appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court. The businesses claim they were wrongfully forced to close as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns.
Thursday, July 27: Over 20 school law enforcement officers are suing Los Angeles Unified, in Cardenas v. Los Angeles Unified School District, seeking compensatory damages and to be reinstated in their jobs that they were fired from. The plaintiffs allege they were wrongfully terminated, despite filing for religious exemptions from the mandatory employee vaccine mandate.
Friday July 28th: On July 20th, in Griffin v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue, the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts dismissed a Title VII lawsuit. Here, an employee at the Massachusetts Department of Revenue was denied a request for religious exemption for the company’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, and subsequently fired after refusing to get vaccinated. The plaintiff alleged religious discrimination and the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Title VII.
Monday July 31st: in X Corp v. Center for Countering Digital Hate Inc., X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, sued CCDH US, a non-profit corporation. X Corp alleges that the defendants censored important topics on their website, such as COVID-19 vaccinations. In this latest prayer for relief, X Corp seeks a trial by jury along with a monetary and preliminary injunction for the harm on inaccurate research about COVID-19 vaccinations and other important topics.
August, 2023
Litigation Update August 4, 2023
Litigation Update August 11, 2023
Tuesday August 1st: former Beth Israel Lahey Health employees were fired for refusing to get COVID-19 vaccines in McEntee v. Beth Israel Lahey Health Inc.. A federal judge dismissed most of the lawsuit filed by these plaintiffs, as the imminent bodily harm by the vaccination policy that the former employees alleged was ruled to not constitute assault and there was not viable equal protection claim. The only claim permitted by the judge was that the hospitals were motivated by retaliatory animus when they fired the employees.
Wednesday August 2nd: In Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, A California Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an employer at the Cedar Sinai-Medical Center after they fired their employee, Deanna Hodges, for refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Here, the plaintiff did not sufficiently provide evidence of a disability that would exempt her from the mandatory vaccine policy and thus her claims for disability discrimination and under the Fair Employment and Housing Act were inadequate.
Wednesday, August 2nd: In Skains v. Lake Central School Corporation, an Indiana District Court judge granted summary judgment and dismissed a lawsuit that several parents brought against the school district. The parents challenged Lake Central’s policies on masking, contact tracing, and quarantine procedures, alleging they violated the Indiana Constitution, Indiana law, and Fourth and First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The court held that plaintiffs failed to state actionable claims.
Friday, August 4th: In Adams v. New York State Unified Court System, a New York District Court ruled partly in favor of the state defendants in a lawsuit filed by a court clerk. The clerk brought claims of religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII based on the court system’s vaccination mandate.The Court found that the plaintiff failed to allege claims of disparate treatment and retaliation based on her religion. However, the plaintiff’s claim of failure to accommodate her religious beliefs did not warrant dismissal.
Tuesday, August 8th: In Massachusetts, two white male business owners filed a lawsuit in district court against the state alleging racial discrimination for the state’s Inclusive Recovery Grant Program, which gave pandemic recovery funds to small businesses owned by women and people of color.
Wednesday August 16th: In Fox v. Makin, a Maine district court allowed a case to proceed challenging Maine’s mandatory childhood vaccine policy. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the lack of a religious exemption violates the free exercise and equal protection clauses. The court held that the plaintiffs’ case was plausible, given a recent 1st Circuit case that held a similar mandate for Maine healthcare workers also potentially violated the free exercise clause.
September, 2023
Litigation Update September 15, 2023
Litigation Update September 22, 2023
Litigation Update September 29, 2023
Friday September 1st: in Apter v. Health & Human Svc., the Fifth Circuit held that three doctors can use the Administrative Procedure Act to overcome sovereign immunity in their suit against the FDA regarding messaging on ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The doctors allege that the FDA’s campaign to discourage individuals from taking the drug interfered with their practices and harmed their reputations.
Tuesday September 5th: In Howell v. Cooper, a North Carolina appeals court held that bar owners negatively impacted by COVID-19 shutdowns could proceed with their claims against the Governor. Though the state argued that sovereign immunity should apply, the court held that the bar owners had overcome this by sufficiently alleging plausible constitutional violations. The lone dissenter argued that the COVID emergency laws are presumed constitutional, and therefore the court would need to hold Cooper’s actions arbitrary or irrational in another case before stripping his immunity.
Thursday September 7th: In DiCapua v. City of New York, 10 teachers who lost their jobs for not complying with New York City’s COVID vaccine mandate were ordered rehired and given back pay by a New York state trial court. The judge held that the denial of religious exemptions and subsequent firing of the plaintiffs had been unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious, in part because most of the student population was also unvaccinated. However, the plaintiffs’ request to certify a class was denied for being overbroad.
Thursday September 7th: Former BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee employees filed a class action lawsuit in a federal district court alleging they were fired for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine after their religious exemptions and reasonable accommodation requests were unfairly denied.Friday September 1st: in Apter v. Health & Human Svc., the Fifth Circuit held that three doctors can use the Administrative Procedure Act to overcome sovereign immunity in their suit against the FDA regarding messaging on ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The doctors allege that the FDA’s campaign to discourage individuals from taking the drug interfered with their practices and harmed their reputations.
Friday September 8th: In Missouri v. Biden, the Fifth Circuit narrowed the injunction limiting the ability of federal agencies to ask social media platforms to take down certain posts. The lower court held that the agencies had violated the First Amendment by pressuring platforms to remove posts related to topics such as COVID-19 origin theories, vaccine side-effects, and election fraud. The amended order only applies to the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI, cutting three additional agencies. The language of the injunction also softened, with the agencies not being allowed to “coerce” companies to delete posts. However, the injunction was administratively stayed by Justice Alito on Thursday, September 14th, and will not go into effect until Saturday, September 23rd at the earliest.
Wednesday, September 13th: In National Association for Gun Rights v. Grisham, a gun rights activist group filed suit in the District Court of New Mexico against the state government for declaring gun violence a public health emergency and suspending open and concealed carry laws in parts of the state. The suit, arguing that the orders violate the Second Amendment, names the New Mexico Department of Health Secretary as well as Governor Lujan Grisham as defendants. The court granted the requested temporary restraining order, and a motion for a preliminary injunction is currently pending.
Thursday, September 14th: In Meta Platforms v. District of Columbia, the DC Court of Appeals upheld a subpoena against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, seeking data on their internal COVID-19 misinformation policies. The District of Columbia initially filed suit against Meta alleging they misled the public on their commitment to addressing misinformation on their platforms during the pandemic. The lower court held, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the information the subpoena seeks is not governed under the Stored Communications Act, so a warrant is not required to compel Meta to produce it.
Thursday, September 14th: The Northern District of Texas dismissed the majority of claims in Schelske v. Austin for mootness, except for the claims of an Army service member discharged for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. The plaintiffs sued claiming that the Army violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for all service members. All but one of the plaintiffs in the case remained in the Army throughout the litigation, and given the vaccine mandate’s recission, the court held their claims were now moot. The claims brought by the one plaintiff who had been discharged, however, can still proceed to seek reinstatement, or to change his discharge record to honorable.
Tuesday September 19th: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suits in federal district courts of Florida and Ohio alleging that employers violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by not accommodating their employees’ religious beliefs. The two cases both involve employees who were fired for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccination after their requests for religious exemptions were denied.
Tuesday September 19th: A New York district court judge dismissed a New York City Court Judge’s claims in Mora v. New York State Unified Court System. The plaintiff alleged that the state court system’s requirement that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as their denial of his religious exemption violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and his First Amendment rights. The district court disagreed, holding that the mandate applied to all employees of the New York Unified Court System, and the mere fact that his religious exemption was denied does not make the policy non-neutral.
Wednesday September 20th: In Brown v. NW Permanente, a federal district court in Oregon allowed a challenge to the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers to proceed on religious discrimination grounds. The two plaintiffs, healthcare workers, sued their former employer, Northwest Permanente, after they were terminated despite their religious exemptions initially being granted. While the court dismissed claims related to invasion of privacy and unlawful termination, the court held that the plaintiffs had plausibly pled their case enough to advance to discovery.
Wednesday September 27th: The Fourth Circuit upheld a lower decision dismissing a challenge to the Head Start’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate in Etherton v. Biden. Etherton, a prekindergarten teacher, challenged the federal vaccine mandate for all Head Start employees. However, the court held that because Etherton did not have any Head Start students in her class and her school district had a policy of not enforcing the mandate for such teachers, she had not actually been injured.
Thursday September 28th: The Washington Supreme Court upheld Governor Jay Inslee’s COVID-era ban on evictions in Gonzales v. Inslee. The plaintiffs, landlords in Washington, argued that the moratorium on rental evictions exceeded the emergency powers granted to the governor under the state constitution. The Court, however, held that the ban only applied to evictions, not paying rent, and therefore did not exceed the statutory language granting the governor his powers during emergencies.
Thursday September 28th: In Adams v. Mass General Brigham, the federal District Court of Massachusetts allowed the majority of claims to go forward in a case alleging that Mass General Brigham unfairly denied religious exemptions to some employees. The court held that a hospital vaccination policy that had no exemptions would have passed muster, but by deciding which employees would be exempted, the hospital had implicated the reasonable accommodation requirements of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allowing some exemptions implied that some of the 154 plaintiffs could also have been exempted without creating undue hardship for the hospital, requiring individual analysis for each of the denials moving forward.
Friday September 29th: The motion for a temporary restraining order on New Mexico’s updated firearms ban was denied by the federal District Court of New Mexico in We the Patriots USA v. Grisham. As covered two weeks ago, the original ban on carrying firearms in public, declared as part of the gun violence public health emergency, had portions of it struck by a temporary restraining order brought by guns rights activists. However, the court held that the new version of the ban, which applies to places for children to play, is likely to pass muster, and a temporary restraining order is not warranted.
October, 2023
Litigation Update October 6, 2023
Litigation Update October 13, 2023
Litigation Update October 20, 2023
Litigation Update October 27, 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
Litigation Update November 3, 2023
Litigation Update November 10, 2023
Litigation Update November 17, 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
Litigation Update December 1, 2023
Litigation Update December 8, 2023
Litigation Update December 15, 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.