574 F.Supp.3d 322
D.S.C.2021Background
- SRNS, a private LLC managing the Savannah River Site under a DOE contract, issued a COVID-19 vaccine mandate requiring covered employees be fully vaccinated by November 30, 2021, with a process for medical and religious exemptions and options for unpaid leave, resignation, or termination for noncompliance.
- Plaintiffs (79 SRNS employees/contractors) sued in state court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block the Mandate; SRNS removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs allege the Mandate: constitutes the unauthorized practice of medicine under S.C. law; violates South Carolina public policy and the SC Unfair Trade Practices Act; and breaches federal public policy under the FDCA/EUA informed-consent provisions.
- At the preliminary-injunction stage Plaintiffs argued imminent loss of employment and liberty (being forced to choose vaccination or job) constituted irreparable harm.
- The district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, finding Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm; the court also emphasized the strong South Carolina at-will employment policy and that statutory or executive statements Plaintiffs relied on did not constitute established state public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized practice of medicine (S.C. law) | Mandate and SRNS exemption/onsite administration equate to prescribing/administering medicine and making medical determinations. | Mandate is a workplace safety requirement; exemption determinations review documentation and do not amount to practicing medicine or corporate practice of medicine. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success; Mandate is safety-related and record lacks evidence SRNS unlawfully practiced medicine. |
| SC Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA) | Mandate is deceptive advertising/coercion pushing EUA vaccines into the stream of commerce for SRNS's benefit. | Employment practices are private matters outside SCUTPA's intended scope. | Court: Claim falls outside SCUTPA; Plaintiffs not likely to succeed. |
| South Carolina public policy (right to refuse vaccination) vs. at-will employment | Mandate violates asserted state policy favoring individual vaccine choice (citing S. Res. 177, statutes, exec. statements). | At-will employment is a dominant state policy; Senate resolution is not law and other cited statutes/regulations don't create a clear policy barring employer mandates. | Court: No clear established state public policy overcame at-will doctrine; Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed. |
| Federal law / FDCA / EUA informed-consent | EUA provisions require informed consent and prohibit conditioning employment on EUA products; Mandate thus violates federal law/public policy. | EUA informed-consent obligations apply to medical providers; federal law does not prohibit private employers from imposing vaccine requirements. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show FDCA/EUA bars private mandates or that required information was not provided; not likely to succeed. |
| Irreparable harm (PI element) | Being forced to choose between vaccination and employment (and alleged health risks) is irreparable. | Loss of employment is compensable by money; no forced vaccination; other options/exemptions exist. | Court: Economic/job loss is not irreparable; choice does not warrant injunction; Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes the four-part preliminary injunction standard and the need for a clear showing of likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (discusses preliminary injunction standards in the Fourth Circuit)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (clarifies concreteness and particularization requirements for Article III injury-in-fact)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing principles at pleading stage)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional prerequisites and threshold issues)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (traceability and imminence for standing)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (measuring amount in controversy by value of object of litigation)
- Central W. Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, 636 F.3d 101 (4th Cir. 2011) (LLC citizenship for diversity jurisdiction)
- Taghivand v. Rite Aid Corp., 768 S.E.2d 385 (S.C. 2015) (South Carolina: courts should exercise restraint before declaring public policy exceptions to at-will employment)
- Adler v. American Standard Corp., 830 F.2d 1303 (4th Cir. 1987) (caution against judicial creation of new public policy exceptions)
- Prescott v. Farmers Tel. Co-op., 516 S.E.2d 923 (S.C. 1999) (describes at-will employment doctrine under South Carolina law)
- Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 337 S.E.2d 213 (S.C. 1985) (narrow public-policy exception to at-will employment when employer directs employee to break the law)