Background
This case arises from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed by Seth Fleetwood, the Mayor of the City of Bellingham. Plaintiffs, former City employees, were fired after they refused to comply with the mandate. They appealed from the district court’s order dismissing their Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The court’s reasoning
The panel concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim that they were deprived of the option to accept or refuse drugs authorized for emergency use because the sources relied upon do not create rights enforceable under Section nineteen hundred and eighty-three. Claims under equal protection and substantive due process are subject to rational basis review. The information available to the Mayor showed that the vaccine provided protection, had the same formulation as the FDA-licensed product, and that benefits outweighed risks. The court found that substantially similar mandates survive rational basis review under Curtis and Carvalho. Regarding procedural due process, the court held that employees received sufficient process if they received notice of requirements and consequences and opportunities for religious and medical exemptions. The plaintiffs abandoned claims for informational privacy, Monell liability, and state law claims by failing to cite relevant authority.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that municipal COVID-19 vaccine mandates are subject to rational basis review and that employees who receive notice and exemption opportunities have not been deprived of procedural due process.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download