18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 529 Bauer, et al. v. Sumey, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203204 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, groups of governmental employees, sought a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo during the pendency of the litigation in four cases alleging that Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine mandates violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process, equal protection, and free exercise of religion. The Court denied the motion. The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, as all employees were subject to the same vaccine mandate and exemptions. The Court further determined that Plaintiffs had not clearly shown that they were likely to prevail on their procedural due process claim. Plaintiffs alleged that the vaccine policies violated their substantive due process rights. Plaintiffs generally argued that they had constitutionally protected liberty interests in their "bodily integrity, privacy, and constitutional protections just to name a few." Id . at *24-25. However, the Court ruled that implementation of a vaccine mandate to prevent the spread of a deadly virus among Defendant’s employees and the citizens they serve did not rise to the level of conscience-shocking regulation. Id . at *29. Therefore, the Court declined find that Plaintiffs were likely to satisfy their burden of proving a substantive due process violation. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success in establishing a fundamental right at issue that had been recognized by case law authorities or that was deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Id . at *30. The Court explained that Plaintiffs’ overly general characterization of the rights at issue as involving "bodily integrity" or "privacy" fell short of the required "careful description" of the liberty interest. Id at. *31. The Court also explained that Plaintiffs failed to clearly show that the policies failed to pass muster under rational basis review, as Defendants provided several rational justifications for the policies, including the health concerns to government employees and citizens posed by COVID-19, the continued workforce disruption caused by the spread of COVID-19, particularly among unvaccinated employees, and the financial burden of implementing safeguards to counteract these risks. Id . at *40. The Court thus concluded that Plaintiffs failed to show that the harm they were facing was the result of constitutional violations. Therefore, the irreparable harm factor weighed against granting a preliminary injunction. Finally, the Court opined that while Plaintiffs may remain unvaccinated at their own risk, the balance of equities and public interest did not require Defendants to allow Plaintiffs to spread that risk in their workplace. Id . at *64-65. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Beckerich, et al. v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183757 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 24, 2021). Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction on the ground that their employer’s vaccination policy infringed on their constitutional rights and failed to provide religious and medical accommodations required under the American With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). Id . After considering the traditional preliminary injunction factors – the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, substantial harm to others, and the public interest – the Court held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief. Id . The Court concluded that Plaintiffs could not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on any of their claims, which was the first factor for consideration when determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction. With respect the constitutional claim, the Court opined that Defendant, a private hospital, was not a “state actor” and thus its actions were not subject to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny. As such, the likelihood of success for Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims was “virtually non-existent.” Id . at 6. The Court reached a similar conclusion concerning Plaintiffs’ ADA claim. The Court noted that the ADA generally requires employers to provide a process by which a disabled employee can seek a medical exemption to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Id . at 7. Plaintiffs’ strongest claim, according to the Court, was that the employer “corrupted this process.” Id . Nonetheless, the Court determined that Plaintiffs had not shown that the employer failed to provide the necessary medical accommodations to the vaccination requirement, noting that the employer granted exemptions or deferments to 75% of the applicants. Id . The Court deemed Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim unavailing for similar reasons. The Court noted that none of the Plaintiffs in the case had been denied a religious exemption, and in fact, 11 of the 40 Plaintiffs had been granted one. Id . As such, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs were unable to establish the third element of their Title VII claim, which required discharge or discipline from their employer. Similar to Plaintiffs’ ADA claim, the Court relied on the fact that the employer granted 57% of the requested religious exemptions. Id . at 11-12. The Court also determined that the next preliminary injunction factor – irreparable harm – weighed against granting an injunction. The Court reasoned that there was no irreparable harm because no Plaintiff was forcibly vaccinated and, to the extent there is a violation of the ADA or Title VII, loss of employment, or emotional distress, Plaintiffs would be entitled to monetary relief. Finally, regarding the last two factors – substantial harm to others and public interest – the Court grappled with the competing views of the parties