Appeals Court Upholds Decision to Dismiss City Employee’s COVID Vaccine Lawsuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision that dismissed a lawsuit against the City of Pasadena, concerning its safety policies around COVID-19.

As recently reported by LAWS.com, the court ruled that the City and its employees are protected from legal claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

The ruling “sets a precedent for similar cases across the country,” wrote Rachel Torres, noting that the dispute began when the City of Pasadena’s HR department reviewed exemption requests related to its vaccination policy.

Jonathan Schmidt, a forensic specialist in the Pasadena Police Department, filed the suit in August 2021, after the City implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy. The policy mandated that employees either get vaccinated against the virus or request an exemption.

According to the suit, Schmidt received a religious exemption, but was still required to undergo weekly COVID testing and wearing a mask.

According to court documents, Schmidt was placed on unpaid administrative leave for refusing to test and mask, but eventually agreed to comply with those conditions so that he could return to work, which he did in November 2021.

Still, Schmidt alleged that he still took exception to the City’s COVID-19 safety policy, and contended that the City created a hostile work environment by revealing his unvaccinated status through the masking and vaccine requirements. Nevertheless, he continued to comply until the City rescinded the policy in March 2022.

Schmidt subsequently filed his suit, with the United States District Court for the Central District of California finding that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act applied but initially did not grant immunity to all individual defendants for each claim.

The court ultimately dismissed the complaints, denied the employee’s motion for reconsideration and entered judgment for the defendants.

The appeals court decision to uphold that ruling “has significant implications for city employees and local governments, as it reinforces the legal protections available under the PREP Act for actions taken during public health emergencies,” wrote Torres.

“It also sets a precedent for other cases involving similar claims against municipalities regarding COVID-19 safety measures.”