2022 Ohio 4133
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Miami University implemented a COVID-19 Vaccination Program (Aug. 31, 2021) requiring vaccination for on-campus students and employees, with exemptions for medical reasons, sincerely held religious beliefs, or conscience; exemptions required compliance with testing/masking and a release; deadlines for exemption and vaccination were set.
- Plaintiffs (Jennifer and Ronald Siliko, and Judy Vest), all university employees, filed for declaratory and injunctive relief (Oct. 2021) asserting violations of Article I, §1 of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2905.12 (coercion), R.C. 3709.212, and R.C. 3792.04 (non-FDA vaccine prohibition and discrimination).
- At filing two plaintiffs had already obtained exemptions; the third had not sought an exemption at filing but later obtained one. Plaintiffs and the university repeatedly acknowledged those exemption statuses in filings and the TRO hearing.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for lack of standing, concluding plaintiffs were not being forced to vaccinate and thus lacked injury; the court relied on evidence outside the complaint.
- The Twelfth District affirmed dismissal of claims based on Article I, §1, R.C. 2905.12, R.C. 3709.212, and R.C. 3792.04(B)(1) for lack of standing or lack of a private right of action, but reversed as to the R.C. 3792.04(B)(2) discrimination claim, finding plaintiffs sufficiently alleged standing for that claim and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge alleged violation of Article I, §1 (right to refuse medical treatment) | Siliko plaintiffs argued the policy infringed their right to refuse medical treatment and they sought pre-enforcement relief | Miami: exemptions exist; plaintiffs either received exemptions or failed to seek one, so no injury or live controversy | Dismissed for lack of standing (no injury; claims moot once exemptions granted) |
| Claim under R.C. 2905.12 (coercion) | Policy coerces acceptance of medical treatment by withholding privileges/discipline | Miami: no coercion because exemptions available; coercion statute does not create private civil cause of action | Dismissed: lack of standing and no private right of action under R.C. 2905.12 |
| Claim under R.C. 3709.212 (statutory limit on public‑health orders) | Plaintiffs: statute limits who public‑health orders can target, so university exceeded authority | Miami: R.C. 3709.212 governs boards of health, not university trustees; policy is not a local health order | Dismissed: statute inapplicable and no justiciable injury alleged |
| R.C. 3792.04(B)(1) (prohibition on requiring non‑FDA approved vaccines) | Plaintiffs: policy effectively required EUA vaccines (not fully FDA approved) | Miami: exemptions available; plaintiffs not forced to vaccinate; no actual injury | Dismissed for lack of standing (no live injury; exemptions obtained) |
| R.C. 3792.04(B)(2) (prohibition on discrimination vs. unvaccinated persons) | Plaintiffs: policy discriminates by imposing extra conditions on exempted employees (releases, testing, masking) and excluding vaccinated employees from bonus program | Miami: denied Plaintiffs suffered differential treatment; trial court relied on extrinsic affidavit showing no differentiation | Reversed as to this claim: appellate court held complaint plausibly alleged injury, causation, and redressability and vacated dismissal on standing grounds; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury‑in‑fact, causation, and redressability)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (case mootness principles; a case is moot when issues are no longer live)
- Steele v. Hamilton Cty. Community Mental Health Bd., 90 Ohio St.3d 176 (2000) (recognition of Ohio constitutional right to refuse medical treatment)
- Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Columbus, 164 Ohio St.3d 291 (2020) (standing and declaratory‑judgment prerequisites; preenforcement relief requires present or impending injury)
- Wade v. Univ. of Conn. Bd. of Trustees, 554 F. Supp. 3d 366 (D. Conn. 2021) (district court: plaintiffs lacked standing where exemptions were obtained or not sought)
- Klassen v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 549 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Ind. 2021) (district court allowed one plaintiff to proceed where exemption unavailable; later moot on appeal)