In Chavez v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, (ND CA, Jan. 28,2024), a California federal district court refused to certify as a class action a suit on behalf of employees of the Transit District (BART) who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from BART's Covid vaccine mandate. The court concluded that the disparate factual issues underlying the claims under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act means that common issues of law or fact do not predominate. The court said in part:
Plaintiffs submitted nearly as many systems of belief and grounds for objection as they did applications. Whether or not any one request rests on a bona fide religious belief presents an individual inquiry that requires the consideration of evidence pertaining only to the response in question....
BART’s undue hardship showing—likely to be the dispositive issue in this action—also rests on individual factual issues....
It similarly concluded that common issues did not predominate in plaintiffs' First Amendment Free Exercise Claim, saying in part:
Plaintiffs cite myriad scripture and personal experiences, CDC VARS data and concerns regarding health consequences ... among others, as grounds for objection. Many identify non-vaccination as a core religious tenant, some characterize their decision as a “personal choice,” a number discuss medical concerns.... [T]he need to determine whether plaintiffs have met the bona fide religious belief threshold generates “an unmanageable variety of individual . . . factual issues,” and forecloses on class certification....
Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs also failed to meet the requirement that a class action is the superior way to adjudicate the claims.
In UnifySCC v. Cody, (ND CA, Jan. 29, 2024), a different Northern District of California judge certified a class action (except as to damages) on behalf of 463 individuals who obtained a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate of San Jose County but who, because they were in high risk roles, were placed on administrative leave until reassignments or transfers to lower risk positions became available. The court ruled:
This Class is certified with respect to the following common questions regarding Defendants’ liability:
1. Whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise and equal protection of the law by prioritizing medical exemptions over religious exemptions in high-risk settings;
2. Whether Defendants’ Risk Tier System violated the Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection Clause because it relegated Plaintiffs and the Class members to unpaid leave but allowed some unvaccinated or non-boosted employees to continue to work;
3. Whether the County’s religious exemption and/or accommodation procedure was either non-neutral or not generally applicable such that it constitutes an individualized assessment ... and is thereby subject to strict scrutiny;
4. Whether Defendants provided Individual Plaintiffs and the Class members with reasonable accommodation as required under FEHA and Title VII; and
5. Whether Defendants violated the Establishment Clause by demonstrating hostility towards religion.
The Class is NOT certified with respect to questions of damages.
