19 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2021Background
- Mass General Brigham (MGB) required COVID-19 vaccination for employees with medical or religious exemptions available; deadlines set for completion.
- Exemptions reviewed by medical panels (occupational health and infection control) and a committee of HR attorneys; MGB granted many exemptions but denied eight employees' individual exemption requests.
- Several appellants sought both religious and medical exemptions; none had CDC-recognized medical contraindications; after denials they were placed on unpaid leave and later either resigned, were vaccinated, or were terminated.
- Appellants sued under Title VII and the ADA (challenging denial of individual exemptions, not the overall policy); district court denied a preliminary injunction and found appellants unlikely to succeed on the merits and lacking irreparable harm.
- Appellants moved for an injunction pending appeal; the First Circuit denied that motion, concluding appellants failed to show irreparable injury and that money damages would be an adequate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant an injunction pending appeal (standard: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | Appellants must be reinstated pending appeal; they assert strong merits and irreparable harm from termination/unpaid leave | MGB argues appellants cannot show irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of success; legal remedies (money) are adequate | Denied: appellants failed to show irreparable harm or the requisite strong showing on the merits for an injunction pending appeal |
| Whether termination/unpaid leave causes irreparable harm such that damages are inadequate | Loss of salary, benefits, and alleged psychological injury constitute irreparable harm | Monetary relief adequately compensates; harms are typical of discharged employees; psychological injury generally not irreparable; MGB is a private actor (no First Amendment state-action claim) | Denied: money damages adequate; no irreparable harm; constitutional claim inapplicable against private employer |
| Likelihood of success on ADA/Title VII claims (failure to accommodate, undue hardship, process adequacy) | MGB improperly denied religious and medical exemptions and failed to engage in the required interactive process | District court found plaintiffs unlikely to show disability, qualifying contraindications, reasonableness of accommodation, or to overcome undue hardship; administrative process was adequate | Court concluded appellants did not make the strong likelihood-of-success showing required for injunctive relief |
| Exhaustion/administrative remedies and causal link for retaliation claims | Appellants contend they pursued available administrative routes and suffered retaliatory action | District court found insufficient evidence of exhausted remedies and insufficient causal connection for retaliation claims | Held that appellants failed to demonstrate exhaustion and causal nexus needed to support emergency relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay/ injunction factors; likelihood and irreparable harm are principal considerations)
- Respect Me. PAC v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2010) (standards for injunction pending appeal)
- Matos ex rel. Matos v. Clinton Sch. Dist., 367 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2004) (failure to show irreparable harm moots other injunction factors)
- Doe v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2021) (adequacy of legal remedies bars injunctive relief absent extraordinary showing)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (injunctive relief requires showing that legal remedies are inadequate)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (employment termination rarely justifies injunctive relief absent extraordinary circumstances)
- DeNovellis v. Shalala, 135 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1998) (psychological harm from job loss does not ordinarily constitute irreparable injury)