George v. Grossmont Cuyamaca Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. of Governors
| Decision Date | 03 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-cv-0424-BAS-DDL |
| Parties | JUDY GEORGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GROSSMONT CUYAMACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF GOVERNORS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NO. 40]
Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the requirement imposed by three California Community College Districts (“CCDs”)-San Diego Community College District (“SDCCD”), South Orange County Community College District (“SOCCCD”), and Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District (“GCCCD”)-that their employees and students be fully vaccinated against the novel coronavirus 2019 (“COVID-19”), a highly contagious virus that has killed close to 100,000 Californians and sickened many more. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On a myriad of constitutional grounds and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Complaint contests the legality of the CCDs' vaccine mandates and the framework for determining accommodations built into those mandates (collectively, the “CCDs' Vaccine Requirements”). (Id.)
Approximately three months after commencing this action, and seven months after the final CCD Vaccine Requirement went into effect Plaintiffs moved ex parte for a temporary restraining order, essentially seeking to freeze the CCDs' Vaccine Requirements. (Mot., ECF No. 40; see also Mem. in Supp. of TRO App., Ex. 1 to TRO App (“Mem.”), ECF No. 40-1.) Defendants opposed (Opp'n, ECF No. 68) and Plaintiffs replied (Reply, ECF No. 71). The Court converted the request for a temporary restraining order into a motion for a preliminary injunction (“Motion”) and held oral argument on November 2 2022. (ECF No. 82.) Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments, the Court DENIES the Motion for a preliminary injunction for the following reasons.
COVID-19 is a highly contagious virus that spreads from person to person mainly through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person-even an asymptomatic one-speaks, coughs, or sneezes. Brach v. Newsom, 6 F.4th 905, 934 (9th Cir. 2021) (Hurwitz, C.J., dissenting), vacated on grant of reh'g en banc, 18 F.4th 1031 (9th Cir. 2021). People with COVID-19 have reported a wide range of symptoms, with many suffering hospitalization and/or long-term health complications, including death. Id. Approximately one million Americans-and six million worldwide-have perished from COVID-19 infection and related complications. UnifySCC v. Cody, No. 22-cv-01019-BLF, 2022 WL 2357068, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2022).
COVID-19 first reached the United States in winter of 2021; not long after, “infections began popping up across the country.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 985 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.), rev'd and South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 141 S.Ct. 2563 (2021). Due to its highly contagious nature, its propensity to inflict dire health consequences, and its risk of overwhelming hospitals across the country, the virus brought “ordinary life . . . to a grinding halt.” COVID-19 did not spare California institutions of higher learning-including the three CCDs in this case-from its disruptive effect. In the early days of the pandemic, the CCDs closed their doors and took their services online to prevent infection and disease among their employees and students. (Opp'n at 7.) At that time, there was no widely available or effective pharmaceutical tool for preventing and treating COVID-19 viral infection. Branch, 6 F.4th at 934. But since then, science has enabled us not only to better understand the virus but also it has delivered a new weapon to combat it: widely available vaccines. Id.
Beginning in December 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved three COVID-19 vaccines under an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”): a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (December 11, 2020), a Moderna vaccine (December 18, 2020), and a Johnson & Johnson vaccine (February 27, 2021). (Compl. ¶ 69.) On August 23, 2021, the FDA fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a two-dose series in persons 16 years or older; it remains under EUA for use in persons below 16. (Id. ¶ 57 n. 4.) The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines were also authorized as a two-dose series, but, as of the time of the TRO Application, remain under EUA. (Id.)
Prior to the 2021-22 school year, each of the CCDs' governing boards resolved to confer their Chancellors with authority to develop and adopt policies requiring compulsory vaccination. (See GCCCD Resolution, Ex. J to Compl.; SDCCD Resolution, Ex. D to Mem.; SOCCCD Resolution, Ex. 1 to Vyskocil Decl.)[2]While the CCDs' Vaccine Requirements that ultimately materialized are separate and independent policies, their substantial similarity enables this Court to analyze them singularly in the interests of judicial economy and streamlining the constitutional questions at issue.[3] The Court further notes that, as precedent has evolved throughout the pandemic, it has become increasingly clear that where, as here, it is claimed a vaccination mandate with religious exemptions derogates fundamental rights secured by the Free Exercise Clause, the policy's component parts-(1) the vaccine mandate and (2) the mechanism for granting accommodations-both must pass constitutional muster. UnifySCC, 2022 WL 2357068, at *5 (collecting authorities) ( “separately analyzing” the mandate and accommodation frameworks of COVID-19 vaccination policies “aligns with multiple circuit and district courts['] [approach]”). Accordingly, in order to enable proper analysis of Plaintiffs' free exercise claim, see infra Sec. III.B.2, this Court separates below the mandate components of the CCDs' Vaccine Requirements from the accommodation frameworks, even though the parties do not do so themselves.
The CCDs' Vaccine Requirements mandate-by a date certain-all employees and students either to be fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19 or to establish entitlement to an eligible exemption (“Mandates”). The CCDs' Vaccine Requirements all recognize the same two exemptions: (1) a medical-condition exemption and (2) a sincerely-held religious belief exemption. [4] Each CCD grounds its Mandate in guidance and data from the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”)-as well as other federal, state, and local health agencies and organizations-identifying “vaccination against COVID-19 by as many people as possible a[] necessary measure to control and contain serious illness, hospitalization, and loss of life due to COVID-19.” (GCCCD Board Resolution at 1; SDCCD Resolution at 1; see also Vyskocil Decl. ¶ 6.)
The CCDs prescribe the methods pursuant to which unvaccinated employees and students apply for one of these exemptions to the Mandates. The record submitted reflects that all three institutions required employees and students seeking a sincerely-held religious belief exemption to complete and submit a vaccination exemption form, from which the CCDs' respective Human Resources Departments would determine whether to grant such an exemption. (See, e.g., GCCCD Vaccination Exemption Form, Ex. J to Compl.; SDCCD Vaccination Exemption Form, Ex. V to Compl.; SOCCCD Vaccination Exemption Form, Ex. DD to Compl.)
In varying terms, the CCDs warned employees who failed either to get vaccinated or obtain an exemption by the date set for doing so would subject them to discipline. For example, SOCCCD warned that failure to comply with the Mandate by the end of the 2021-22 school year would result in termination of employment. (SOCCCD Vaccine Requirement § IV.10.) By contrast, SDCCD and GCCCD were vague as to the exact repercussions employees face for failure to comply with their Mandates. (SDCCD Vaccine Requirement at 3 (); GCCCD Vaccine Requirement at 3.)
Employees who successfully established their eligibility for one of the two exemptions partook in an “interactive accommodation process” pursuant to which the CCDs “determine[d] whether a reasonable accommodation to the [Mandates] could be made without posing a health and safety risk to others” (“Accommodation Frameworks”). (GCCCD Vaccine Requirement at 2; SDCCD Vaccine Requirement at 2; see also SOCCCD Vaccine Requirement § II.3.)
GCCCD and SDCCD evaluated accommodations “on an individual basis within the specific reasons for an exemption, work performed, environment in which work is performed, and related relevant factors.” (GCCCD Vaccine Requirement at 2; SDCCD Vaccine Requirement.) The record further reflects that SDCCD employed a “Vaccination Exemption Accommodation Questionnaire” to evaluate accommodation decisions for exempt employees. (SDCCD Questionnaire, Ex. AA to Compl.) “[R]easonable accommodations” under the GCCCD and SDCCCD Accommodation Frameworks include “periodic COVID-19 testing, changes in work assignments, changes in work schedules, changes in work location, and other appropriate measures.” (GCCCD Requirement at 2; SDCCD Vaccine Requirement at 2.) The SDCCD Accommodation Framework previously required exempt employees to submit to compulsory, twice-weekly antigen testing, but SDCCD dropped this strand of its policy in May 2022. (Smith Decl. ¶ 5.)
In contrast to GCCCD and SDCCCD, SOCCCD does not disclose how its Accommodation Framework Operates. The SOCCCD Vaccine Requirement does not list...
To continue reading
Request your trial