Eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy adopted in January 2022. The policy required all employees to be fully vaccinated to prevent viral infection and transmission, with exemptions available for medical contraindications and sincerely held religious beliefs. The Authority granted one temporary medical exemption to an employee who had recently contracted COVID-19 but denied thirteen religious exemption requests, citing the direct threat unvaccinated employees posed to the health and safety of fellow workers, customers, and vendors in enclosed vessel spaces. After the district court denied a preliminary injunction, the First Circuit previously remanded the case to address the relevance of the single medical exemption and the appropriate level of scrutiny. On remand, the district court again denied the injunction, applying rational basis review and finding the policy generally applicable. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the policy was not generally applicable due to the individualized discretion granted to the Authority and the disparity between medical and religious exemptions.
The First Circuit analyzed the case under the Free Exercise Clause, determining that the standard of scrutiny depends on whether the policy is neutral and generally applicable. The court held that the policy was neutral because it did not discriminate against religious practices. The central issue was general applicability. The court addressed two arguments from the plaintiffs. First, the court ruled that the claim that the policy invited individualized consideration of reasons for non-compliance was waived because the plaintiffs failed to raise it squarely and timely in the district court. Second, the court analyzed whether the policy prohibited religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermined the government's interests in a similar way. The court found the medical and religious exemptions were not comparable. Unlike religious exemptions, the medical exemption furthered the Authority's interest in protecting health by accommodating those for whom the vaccine was medically contraindicated. Furthermore, the risks were not comparable in the aggregate: the Authority received thirteen requests for permanent religious exemptions versus only one request for a three-month medical exemption. The court reasoned that granting a significantly larger number of permanent exemptions posed a higher risk of transmission than a single, time-limited medical exemption. Because the exemptions were not comparable, the policy remained generally applicable. Consequently, the court applied rational basis review, finding the policy rationally related to the legitimate government interest of limiting viral infection and transmission to protect public health and safety.
The decision affirms the lower court's denial of the injunction, meaning the Steamship Authority's mandatory vaccination policy remains in effect for its employees. The ruling clarifies that in the context of COVID-19 mandates, a single time-limited medical exemption does not render a policy that denies numerous permanent religious exemptions 'not generally applicable' under the First Amendment. The court did not reach the remaining preliminary injunction factors because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The case is closed at the appellate level, leaving the policy to stand as implemented.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download