32 F.4th 82
1st Cir.2022Background
- Mass General Brigham (MGB) imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in June 2021 with an October 15 deadline, allowing medical or religious exemptions.
- Eight MGB employees sought religious (and some medical) exemptions; MGB denied their requests and placed noncompliant employees on unpaid leave.
- Plaintiffs sued under Title VII and the ADA and sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate them; the district court denied the injunction.
- The First Circuit previously denied an injunction pending appeal and the Supreme Court likewise denied emergency relief.
- After the deadline, one plaintiff resigned, one vaccinated, and six were terminated; the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm sufficient for a preliminary injunction | Loss of income, benefits, emotional distress, and chilling of religious exercise are irreparable | Lost wages/benefits are pocketbook injuries remediable by money damages; no special irreparable factor shown | No—plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; injunction denied |
| Whether alleged Free Exercise injury against a private employer is a constitutional irreparable harm | Chilled religious exercise from mandate is a constitutional injury warranting injunctive relief | MGB is a private actor not bound by Free Exercise; Title VII governs accommodation claims | No—Free Exercise Clause does not apply to MGB; loss of job is not a constitutional irreparable injury |
| Whether money damages are an adequate remedy for wrongful termination under Title VII/ADA | Monetary relief may not fully repair loss of benefits or religious freedom | Money damages ordinarily provide an adequate remedy for termination; external financial harms are not unusual and not irreparable | Money damages are adequate; thus injunction unwarranted |
| Whether passage of the vaccination deadline or plaintiffs’ choices changed the injunctive-analysis | Plaintiffs remain harmed despite deadline; equitable relief still appropriate | Deadline passed and plaintiffs already made choices; no "impossible choice" or special factor | Deadline passage undermines need for injunctive relief; plaintiffs cannot show special circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction factors and requirement to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (adequacy of legal remedies bars injunctive relief when money damages suffice)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (financial hardship from discharge is not usually irreparable injury)
- DeNovellis v. Shalala, 135 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1998) (psychological distress from adverse job action does not typically justify injunction)
- Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2021) (standard for reviewing preliminary injunction denials; irreparable-harm requirement)
- Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham, Inc., 19 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (prior panel decision in the same litigation addressing preliminary relief)
- Kane v. De Blasio, 19 F.4th 152 (2d Cir. 2021) (private employer’s mandate does not create a First Amendment free-exercise violation absent state action)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors and emphasis on the importance of the first two factors)