Brox v. Wood's Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, 706 F.Supp.3d 151

Eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required vaccination for continued employment unless an exemption (medical or religious) was granted.
All plaintiffs sought religious exemptions to the vaccine policy; the Authority denied each request following interviews and review.
After the initial denial of injunction and subsequent appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the lower court on most counts but vacated and remanded the First Amendment free exercise claim to address the appropriate level of scrutiny.
The Authority justified the policy on preventing COVID-19 infection and transmission among staff and the public, referencing the risks posed by unvaccinated individuals in interactive, enclosed workspaces.
Plaintiffs who refused vaccination were terminated; some who complied remained employed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Free Exercise Clause: Level of Scrutiny	Policy is not generally applicable because it permits medical but not religious exemptions; risks are comparable.	Policy is generally applicable; medical and religious exemptions are not comparable—medical is rarer, time-limited.	Rational basis review applies: medical and religious exemptions are not comparable.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits	Policy burdens religious exercise, fails to satisfy strict scrutiny.	Policy satisfies rational basis; even under strict scrutiny, interest is compelling and policy narrowly tailored.	Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; policy satisfies standard applied.
Irreparable Harm and Public Interest	Loss of First Amendment rights causes irreparable harm; public interest favors injunction.	No constitutional violation; public interest supports protecting health via vaccine policy.	Remaining factors do not support injunction when plaintiffs unlikely to succeed.
Comparability of Exemptions	Religious and medical risks equivalent so policy lacks general applicability.	Religious exemptions sought by more people, over longer periods, creating higher aggregate risk.	Exemptions not comparable in scope, duration, or risk; policy is generally applicable.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (sets framework for when laws burdening religion must satisfy strict scrutiny)
Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020) (addresses protections for religious observers against unequal treatment)
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (discusses general applicability and comparability in free exercise analysis)
Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (per curiam) (comparability of risks central to free exercise analysis)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets standard for preliminary injunctions)
New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (success on merits is essential for injunction relief)
Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2021) (upholds vaccine mandate with medical but not religious exemption under rational basis)