Fifth Circuit Court Reinstates COVID Shot Mandate Religious Discrimination Case
- by Carolyn Hendler, JD
- Published
- Conscience
Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Federal Workers to Get COVID-19 Shot
In September 2021, then President Biden issued Executive Order 14043 requiring all federal employees to get the COVID shot. The three plaintiffs requested a religious exemption to the military’s COVID shot mandate along with requests to be exempt from certain COVID protocols namely, masking, testing or distancing. Before the religious exemption requests were decided, a Texas court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Texas from enforcing the Executive Order. One of the plaintiffs, Stadler, requested an exemption to COVID testing and the request was denied. Stadler was placed on administrative leave due to her failure to follow COVID testing procedures and she resigned from service on June 1, 2022.2
Class Action Suit Filed Against DOD Opposing COVID Shot Mandate
In May 2022, Biden revoked the COVID shot mandate for federal employees following a nation-wide injunction to mandatory shot requirements. The three plaintiffs together with a putative class of all other DOD employees, who filed a religious exemption to the COVID mandate, filed suit against the Department of Defense (DoD) in July 2023 for denying their religious exemption. The basis of plaintiff’s claims were a violation of Title VII and Rehabilitation Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a Fifth Amendment Biven’s Claim. Plaintiffs soon withdrew their Fifth Amendment Biven’s complaint.3
District Court Dismisses Case
The District Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice finding that the claims were moot because the DoD’s COVID shot mandate was rescinded before it was enforced against plaintiffs. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s challenges to the COVID guidelines asserting that they were insufficiently pled due to their failure to demonstrate a conflict between their religious beliefs and the COVID guidelines.4
Appellate Court Revives Action
On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court’s finding that their claim was moot. To determine whether a case is moot the court will look at whether the party’s interest that existed at the beginning of the litigation is maintained thought the court process. If a case or controversy no longer exists between the parties, then a case is moot.
Even when a case may be moot, a claim for damages may survive. In this case, the district court found that the COVID shot mandate was revoked before it applied to plaintiffs, while plaintiffs argue that they were harmed despite the rescission of the mandate and that their claim for damages should survive. The Appellate Court agreed with plaintiffs that their claim for damages survives the mootness argument, and reversed and remanded the district court’s decision.5
COVID Guidelines Claim Denied
Addressing plaintiff’s claims that the COVID Guidelines violated Title VII, the Appellate Court sided with the District Court and dismissed plaintiff’s claims. Title VII requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious observances for employees provided this does not pose an undue hardship. The court concluded that the COVID-19 Guidelines of masking, testing and distancing did not conflict with plaintiff’s assertions that God created her immune system because they did not amount to “vaccinations, medications, or treatments.”
Accordingly, the Appellate court dismissed plaintiff’s claims regarding COVID Guidelines but reversed and remanded the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for damages.6
Judge Don R. Willett wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion agreeing with the majority view that the plaintiff’s damages claim was not moot. However, he upheld two of the plaintiff’s challenges to the COVID guidelines because they provided adequate evidence that the Guidelines conflicted with their religious beliefs.7
COVID Mandate Overreach
Scott Lloyd, attorney for the plaintiff noted that they were addressing their next steps and were “really pleased to get a unanimous ruling on the mootness issue.”8 A California attorney not affiliated with this case concluded:
[It] is a crucial victory for holding federal agencies accountable for their COVID-19 mandate overreach. The 5th Circuit correctly held that the Biden administration cannot erase the harm inflicted on employees simply by rescinding an unconstitutional policy after the fact. By affirming that damages claims are not moot, this decision breathes life into countless similar cases that were wrongly dismissed and provides a clear path to justice for those who suffered religious discrimination.
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:
No comments:
Post a Comment