Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. Local 2018 v. Biden
| Decision Date | 12 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-5172 |
| Citation | 598 F.Supp.3d 241 |
| Parties | AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2018, et al. v. Joseph R. BIDEN, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Bruce L. Castor, Jr., Van der Veen, O'Neill, Hartshorn and Levin, Philadelphia, PA, for American Federation of Government Employees Council of Prison Locals 33, American Federation of Government Employees Local 2018, Michael Garcia, Kenneth Lazor.
Cody Taylor Knapp, DOJ-Civ, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice Washington, DC, for Director Kiran Ahuja, Joseph R. Biden, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Lloyd Austin.
This action challenges the legality of President Biden's Executive Order 14043 compelling federal employees in the executive branch to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The plaintiffs are the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2018 and American Federation of Government Employees Council of Prison Locals 33 as well as individuals Michael Garcia and Kenneth Lazor. The latter are employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia.1 In addition to the President, plaintiffs have sued Kiran Ahuja in her official capacity as Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management, Merrick Garland in his official capacity as Attorney General, and Lloyd Austin in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the President's Executive Order as well as compensatory damages. They have also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants have countered with a motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and in the alternative under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
President Biden, asserting authority vested in him by the Constitution and by 5 U.S.C. §§ 3301, 3302 and 7301, issued Executive Order 14043, 86 Fed. Reg. 50,989, on September 9, 2021. After referencing the Administration's policy to halt the spread of COVID-19, a highly infectious disease, the Executive Order cites to the finding of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "that the best way to slow the spread of COVID-19 and to prevent infection by the Delta variant or other variants is to be vaccinated." It mandates that all employees in the executive branch be vaccinated against COVID-19 "subject to such exceptions as required by law" in order "to promote the health and safety of the Federal workforce and the efficiency of the civil service." It further directs the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force2 to implement a program for the required vaccinations
.
The Task Force pursuant to the President's Executive Order issued Guidelines on October 5, 2021. The Guidelines required federal executive branch employees including the individual plaintiffs to be vaccinated by November 22, 2021. The deadline was later extended until early 2022. Those who failed to provide proof of vaccination
or to obtain an exemption would be subject to discipline and ultimately to termination. On January 21, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order 14043. See
Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, Civ. A. No. 21-356, 581 F.Supp.3d 826 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022), appeal filed (5th Cir. Jan. 26, 2022). While the Government appealed, the preliminary injunction remained in effect. See
Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, 25 F.4th 354, 355 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). On April 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with one judge dissenting, vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the action to the district court with direction to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, No. 22-40043, 30 F.4th 503 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022). The Court has currently scheduled the issuance of its mandate for May 31, 2022.
The amended complaint here contains seven counts.3 It alleges that the Executive Order compels plaintiffs to engage in political speech in violation of the First Amendment, interferes with their free exercise of religion, and invades their right of privacy and bodily autonomy under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also aver that the Executive Order is an unfair labor practice and an ultra vires act by the President. The Executive Order, in plaintiffs’ view, also constitutes the exercise of power by the President which Congress has not delegated to him. Finally, plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order was subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act and is arbitrary and capricious.4 See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a).
The plaintiffs contend that they have "suffered public harassment, embarrassment, and shaming" by having to reveal their vaccination
status, especially any opposition to vaccination. They also assert that despite their union membership they were never given an opportunity to negotiate in good faith with the Government concerning the vaccine mandate. While the Guidelines provide for religious and medical exemptions, the amended complaint alleges that "union members" (who are not named as plaintiffs) were arbitrarily denied those exemptions. Nonetheless, it is undisputed from official government records produced by defendants that the individual plaintiffs sought and were granted religious exemptions by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in December 2021 before they were named as plaintiffs in this lawsuit. As of this time, no federal employee has been disciplined or terminated as a result of the Executive Order.
The court first turns to the defendants’ motion to dismiss all the claims, both constitutional and statutory, of the individual plaintiffs for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs, of course, have the burden of proof to establish that the court has the power to hear their case. See Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 346 (3d Cir. 2016).
The defendants make either a facial jurisdictional attack or a factual jurisdictional attack on the various claims asserted in the amended complaint. To the extent they make a facial attack, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts but may also consider certain documents which are integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint or which are undisputedly authentic if plaintiffs’ claims are based on the document. Const. Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014) ; see also In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). With respect to a factual attack, the court must journey beyond the averments of the amended complaint and make findings of facts relevant to jurisdiction. Aichele, 757 F.3d at 358.
Defendants, in support of their factual attack, assert that the two individual plaintiffs lack standing to sue. Defendants rely on the undisputed affidavits and documents that these plaintiffs have received religious exemptions from the vaccination
mandate of the Executive Order. As noted above, the court has before it the official records of the Federal Bureau of Prisons granting each such an exemption in December 2021.
The power of the federal courts under Article III of the Constitution is limited to adjudicating only "cases" and "controversies." Id. at 356-57. To bring a case or controversy, a plaintiff must have standing, that is, must have suffered a concrete and particularized injury or is in imminent danger of suffering such an injury. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021). Here the individual plaintiffs do not have standing. They have been granted a religious exemption. While it is always possible that the exemptions could be revoked, the fact remains that these plaintiffs have not incurred and are not in imminent danger of incurring an adverse employment action due to the President's Executive Order.
The claims of the individual plaintiffs will be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Defendants also challenge subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims of the plaintiff unions seeking to represent their unnamed members. The Supreme Court allows an association to file suit on behalf of its members if it meets several requirements: (1) "its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right"; (2) "the interests at stake are germane to the organization's purpose"; and (3) "neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit."5 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000).
The plaintiff unions do not allege that any of their members have been fired as a result of the Executive Order. They simply aver that federal agencies have "arbitrarily denied religious exemption applications from Plaintiffs’ members, despite the fact that the members applying have longstanding, deeply felt and strongly held religious beliefs in opposition to vaccination
for COVID-19."
The plaintiff unions cannot rest on the general allegations in the amended complaint in order to represent their members now that defendants have made a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction. To meet their burden of proof, they must each name at least one member who has standing and present specific facts through affidavits or other evidence which support that standing. See Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 498-99, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009) ; Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 563, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The plaintiff unions have come forward with no such evidence. As the Supreme Court has observed, the required specificity is critically important for several reasons. First, an organizational plaintiff is not representing itself but is seeking to represent...
To continue reading
Request your trial