![]() ![]() Third, Judge Ho cites his January 2020 concurrence in Horvath v. The panel here seemed to disregard the irreparable injury analysis from BST Holdings. Our colleagues put it this way: "It is clear that a denial of the petitioners' proposed stay would do them irreparable harm," because the federal vaccine mandate "threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s)" (or put another way, "no jab, no job"). Indeed, just a few weeks ago, our court recognized that irreparable injury results when employees are forced to choose between their beliefs and their benefits. Second, Judge Ho points out that the District Court's decision is inconsistent with recent circuit precedent concerning the OSHA vaccine mandate. This "crisis of conscience" distinguishes the COVID cases from conventional employment disputes. And it is a quintessentially irreparable injury, warranting preliminary injunctive relief. To many, this is the most horrifying of Hobson's choices. It forces them to choose between the two most profound obligations they will ever assume-holding true to their religious commitments and feeding and housing their children. Make no mistake: Vaccine mandates like the one United is attempting to impose here present a crisis of conscience for many people of faith. ![]() Forcing individuals to choose between their faith and their livelihood imposes an obvious and substantial burden on religion. Instead, the company is trying to make its employees obtain the COVID-19 vaccine, notwithstanding any religious objections they might have. Judge Ho dissented, and articulated a very different conception of irreparable injury.įirst, Judge Ho acknowledges that in the "garden variety case," the threat of termination is not an irreparable injury. This shadow docket ruling had no reasoning, but apparently had precedential value. The majority endorsed the reasoning of the District Court's decision, and also cited the Supreme Court's new order in Dr. On Monday, a divided three-judge panel (Stewart, Haynes, and Ho) denied the injunction. The United employees sought an injunction pending appeal from the Fifth Circuit. ![]() This court found that there was no irreparable injury because the employees could be awarded backpay. (For a change, I am not writing this post aboard a United flight). Last month, a federal district court reached a similar conclusion in a challenge to United Airline's vaccine mandate. The argument goes, if a person is wrongfully terminated, a court can later order reinstatement, backpay, and restoration of other benefits (such as seniority). Justice Barrett's concurrence seemed to assume the answer was no. Mills, Justice Gorsuch's dissent answered that question, yes. Is the threat of termination for failure to get vaccinated irreparable harm? In John Does 1-3 v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2023
Categories |