O'Hailpin v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 583 F.Supp.3d 1294

Hawaiian Airlines implemented a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for U.S.-based employees (effective Nov. 1, 2021) with a process for disability and sincerely held religious accommodation requests; unvaccinated employees could participate in a Transition Period Testing Program (TPTP) or take a 12‑month unpaid leave of absence (LOA).
Several hundred employees sought religious or medical exemptions; many requests were denied, some employees were auto-enrolled in TPTP while requests were pending, and non‑compliant (non‑union) employees were subject to termination or LOA beginning Jan. 5, 2022.
Seven representative plaintiffs (flight attendants, pilots, technicians, and staff) sued under Title VII (failure to accommodate and retaliation) and the ADA (failure to accommodate and retaliation), and moved for a TRO/preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the vaccine policy.
Hawaiian moved to strike a late expert declaration (Frederick Reed Bates, II) submitted with plaintiffs’ reply; the court granted the motion and struck the declaration as untimely and unfairly withheld.
The court denied the TRO and order to show cause, holding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, failed to exhaust EEOC administrative remedies (undermining likelihood of success), and that the balance of equities and public interest favored Hawaiian given safety concerns and asserted undue hardship from accommodations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Irreparable harm to justify TRO	Termination, loss of health insurance (affecting IVF), crisis of conscience, chilling of testimony, psychological and constitutional injury	Job loss is reparable by money; COBRA/other insurance available; no state‑action constitutional claim; harms speculative	No irreparable harm; TRO denied
Likelihood of success / exhaustion	EEOC inquiries and pending charges should not bar preliminary relief; limited exception for maintaining status quo exists	Plaintiffs have not exhausted EEOC remedies; exhaustion is mandatory and defeats likelihood of success	Failure to exhaust defeats likelihood of success; injunctive relief inappropriate
Title VII / ADA accommodation (undue hardship)	Plaintiffs entitled to reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs and disabilities	Accommodations would cause more‑than‑de minimis undue hardship (safety risks from unvaccinated crew, testing logistics, scheduling/union/grievance issues, international travel constraints)	Employer has shown undue hardship at preliminary stage; plaintiffs unlikely to prevail
Motion to strike expert declaration	Declaration supplements reply and supports TRO arguments	Declaration was withheld from the opening submission and violated local rules; unfair to defendants	Declaration of Bates struck as untimely; court sustained motion to strike

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding‑scale approach; serious questions plus balance of hardships can justify injunction)
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (loss of employment ordinarily not irreparable for injunctive relief)
Fort Bend County v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (exhaustion requirement in Title VII/ADA context is mandatory and nonjurisdictional)
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (employer need not accommodate if accommodation imposes undue hardship)
Together Employees v. Mass. Gen. Brigham, 19 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (loss of employment and related harms from vaccine policies commonly held not to be irreparable)
Doe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 19 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing vaccine mandates as promoting public health and safety)
BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021) (addressing argument that government coercion via vaccine/test mandates can cause irreparable harm)