SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) —A federal judge granted partial summary judgment to Santa Clara County in a suit from a class of employees who challenged the county’s Covid-19 policies that required employees to be vaccinated.
In August 2021, after Covid-19 vaccinations became widely available, the county adopted a policy requiring its employees to become vaccinated against the virus. Some employees received religious exemptions and accompanying accommodations from the vaccination mandate, but the policy’s accommodations framework determined that exempt employees that worked in certain roles deemed “high-risk” for Covid-19 transmission — like the plaintiffs — could not be accommodated in a way that would permit them to continue their work in person.
The plaintiffs claimed the risk tier system used by Santa Clara County was arbitrary and subject to higher scrutiny because taking away the plaintiffs’ livelihoods was not the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of lowering the spread of Covid-19.
U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman, a Barack Obama appointee said in 27-page order that the high-risk system was “neutral and generally applicable.” The system considered the nature of the employee’s essential contact with vulnerable populations like children and the elderly, jail inmates or the immunocompromised, along with if their work positions were in group settings with particular risks of outbreaks.
“Plaintiffs’ suggestions that the classification was entirely subjective and untethered are unsupported by the evidence. Categorization of positions into risk tiers was guided by objective criteria,” she wrote in in the complaint issued late Wednesday night.
“Crucially, plaintiffs have presented no evidence indicating that religion — or any other criteria besides those in the above-enumerated list — was a consideration in any categorization determination,” she added.
The plaintiffs had also accused the county of prioritizing employees with medical exemptions to help them find alternate employment. The plaintiffs claimed that they tried to find jobs for months to no avail after being placed on leave, resulting in undue hardship.
Freeman allowed the bulk of those employment discrimination claims to proceed to the next stage of the case at this point, citing the inconsistencies between class members.
“The critical point at this juncture is that a ruling in favor of the named plaintiffs regarding the adverse employment action factor does not resolve the issue of whether the entire class can establish a prima facie case,” Freeman said, denying summary judgment to both parties.
But the judge also determined that the plaintiff’s Monell claims that the government violated their constitutional rights need more evidence.
“Plaintiffs have yet to prove that the named plaintiffs or class members suffered a constitutional violation, so the court cannot grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the Monell claim,” Freeman wrote.
The plaintiffs — many working as nurses in hospitals and all designated as “high risk” employees by the county — claimed in their 2022 complaint that they received religious exemptions, but were not permitted to continue in-person work. Instead, they were placed on leave and directed to the county’s accommodations procedures.
Counsel for the plaintiffs and the Santa Clara County did not immediately reply to requests for comment.