Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-11159 |
| Parties | David Sambrano, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; David Castillo, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Kimberly Hamilton, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Genise Kincannon, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Seth Turnbough, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United Airlines, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Before Smith, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs are United Airlines employees. United has given them a choice: receive the COVID-19 vaccine or be placed on unpaid leave indefinitely. The question we address here is narrow. If United's policy is not preliminarily enjoined, are plaintiffs likely to suffer irreparable harm? For the two plaintiffs who received religious exemptions and remain on unpaid leave, we hold that they are. We therefore REVERSE the decision of the district court and REMAND for consideration of the other factors courts must evaluate when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction.[1]
Critically we do not decide whether United or any other entity may impose a vaccine mandate. Nor do we decide whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to a preliminary injunction. The district court denied such an injunction on one narrow ground; we reverse on that one narrow ground and remand for further consideration.
In August of 2021, United announced that each of its United States-based employees would be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The announcement came with a deadline of either five weeks after the FDA formally approved the vaccine or five weeks after September 20, whichever was sooner. The FDA approved the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on August 21, 2021 which set the vaccination deadline as September 27, 2021. Employees who were not vaccinated by that deadline were terminated. United does not require any passenger on its planes to be vaccinated. Nor does it require its employees based in other countries to get vaccinated-even though those employees work with and come into contact with U.S.-based crews. And neither does it require pilots from other airlines who ride in the cockpit jumpseat on United flights to be vaccinated.
United purported to provide exemptions for those who could not get vaccinated for either religious or medical reasons. That is within ten days after the FDA approved the COVID-19 vaccine, a United employee could apply for an exemption from the vaccine mandate for either religious or medical reasons. But at a town-hall meeting, United's CEO warned that not many exemptions would be granted and remarked that any employee who "all the sudden decid[ed], 'I'm really religious'" would be "putting [her] job on the line" by requesting an accommodation. Once an employee requested a religious exemption, United would ask the employees about their past vaccinations, the use of stem cells in those vaccines, and "why receiving such vaccines or medications were not a violation of" the employees' "sincerely held [religious] belief" on those prior occasions. United also asked why the employees' religious beliefs prevented them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine "but not taking other types of medicine." Some employees were asked to provide a letter from a pastor or other third party attesting that the employee actually held religious beliefs.[2] After United would determine which employees were sufficiently religious, it provided those employees with an "accommodation." The employee could keep her job, but could not go to work, would not be paid, and would not receive company-paid benefits. To go back to work, the exempt employee had to get the COVID-19 vaccine. And if the employee would not, she could instead wait it out and start work again after the pandemic "meaningfully recedes" (which United guesses could be another "72 months" or so).
United's campaign was not limited to forcing employees to choose between the vaccine and indefinite unpaid leave. For example, in August 2021, United began sending postcards to unvaccinated employees stating that United had not received evidence of their vaccination and they needed to get vaccinated to avoid being "separated from United." Plaintiffs credibly contend that United sent postcards rather than letters in order to broadcast employees' unvaccinated status to family members and enlist those family members in coaxing employees to receive the vaccine.
Plaintiffs are several United employees who requested religious or medical accommodations from United. Those requesting religious accommodations did so out of concern that aborted fetal tissue was used to develop or test the COVID-19 vaccines.[3] Others requested medical accommodations because they had preexisting conditions which they believed made receiving a vaccine unnecessarily risky. For their concerns, United threatened to stop paying them or providing any benefits.
Plaintiffs filed EEOC charges in September 2021. But because United's policy would go into effect before they received right-to-sue notices, plaintiffs sued and moved for a preliminary injunction, alleging United's vaccine policy violated their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs specifically asserted that "United has put its religious and disabled workers in an impossible position-take the COVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of their religious beliefs and health, or face a lengthy period of unpaid leave."
After plaintiffs filed suit, United changed its policy to allow certain employees with non-customer-facing operational roles-for example, aircraft mechanics-the accommodation of working pursuant to a masking-and-testing protocol. United also permitted some customer-service representatives to switch to remote positions rather than be placed on unpaid leave. This allowed three plaintiffs-Kimberly Hamilton, David Castillo, and Debra Jonas-to continue to work and be paid without receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. But for customer-facing employees, including pilots, flight attendants, and most customer-service agents, indefinite unpaid leave remains the only "accommodation" United will provide. Plaintiffs David Sambrano and Genise Kincannon-a pilot and a flight attendant, respectively-fall into this category and thus are only eligible for unpaid leave.[4] After a hearing, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Though the district court noted that plaintiffs' claims were "compelling and convincing," it ultimately concluded that plaintiffs could not establish irreparable injury.[5] Plaintiffs appealed and moved for an injunction pending appeal, which a panel of this court denied. See Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., 19 F.4th 839, 839 (5th Cir. 2021). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
The question presented to us in this appeal is whether the district court erred by denying plaintiffs a preliminary injunction on the ground that they have not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury if United's policy continued to operate against them while their Title VII suit is pending. We hold that the district court erred as to the plaintiffs who remain on unpaid leave and have brought Title VII actions.[6] Plaintiffs are being subjected to ongoing coercion based on their religious beliefs. That coercion is harmful in and of itself and cannot be remedied after the fact.[7]
A.
"The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and may be reversed on appeal only by a showing of abuse of discretion." White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984)). When considering whether a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction, courts must consider questions of fact and of law. Apple Barrel, 730 F.2d at 386. Factual conclusions of the trial court may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Legal conclusions "are subject to broad review and will be reversed if incorrect." Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Neal, 669 F.2d 300, 304 (5th Cir. 1982).
B.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury until the court renders a decision on the merits. See, e.g., Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 1974). A plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction if she shows: "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the threatened harm to the party sought to be enjoined; and (4) granting the injunctive relief will not disserve the public interest." City of Dallas v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 847 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation omitted). In this appeal we address only the second factor. But before doing so, we must address the broader issue whether a preliminary injunction is ever available to plaintiffs suing private employers under Title VII. We hold that it is.
Nothing in our precedent forecloses the general availability of a preliminary injunction to a plaintiff bringing a Title VII action against a private employer.[8] Indeed, binding precedent supports the availability of such relief. In Drew v Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., we held that "in the limited class of c...
To continue reading
Request your trial