Shaheed v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Thaddeus Saleem Shaheed worked for the City and County of San Francisco as a Customer Service Agent in its 311 Call Center. He asserted that his Muslim faith prevented him from complying with the City’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. He requested a religious exemption and accommodation, including the possibility of working remotely or working in person with personal protective equipment and regular testing. The City’s reviewers found that his request was based on sincere religious beliefs, but the City determined that he violated the mandatory policy and terminated his employment.

Shaheed filed this action on October 12, 2022, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First Amendment, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. More than three years after filing the lawsuit, he moved for a preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement to his former position.

Preliminary-injunction standard

The court explained that a preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief requiring a clear showing of entitlement. The relevant factors were whether Shaheed was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, whether the balance of equities favored him, and whether an injunction was in the public interest. Because the City was a government defendant, the court evaluated the balance-of-equities and public-interest factors together. The court also recognized an alternative standard allowing relief when serious questions exist on the merits, the hardships sharply favor the plaintiff, irreparable harm is likely, and relief serves the public interest.

Likelihood of success

The court held that Shaheed had made a prima facie case of religious discrimination under a failure-to-accommodate theory. That showing required evidence that he had a bona fide religious belief conflicting with an employment duty, informed the employer of the belief and conflict, and suffered an adverse employment action because he could not fulfill the job requirement.

The court found that Shaheed satisfied all three requirements. The City’s determination that his beliefs were sincere supported the first requirement. His request for a religious exemption and accommodation showed that he informed the City of his belief and the conflict. The court found it undisputed that he was terminated because he did not get vaccinated or because the City did not accommodate his refusal to vaccinate. The court also noted that his position involved fewer public-facing duties than the positions at issue in a related case and therefore would have been easier to accommodate. It concluded that Shaheed was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

Irreparable harm

The court found that Shaheed sufficiently showed a likelihood of irreparable harm without an injunction. It considered his loss of the opportunity to pursue his chosen profession, the asserted conflict between keeping his faith and keeping his job, and his claimed financial distress, including lost income and a house allegedly nearing foreclosure. The court also considered that California law authorizes injunctive relief to stop discriminatory practices and that the loss of employment can establish irreparable harm in the circumstances described. It concluded that Shaheed made the required showing.

Balance of equities and public interest

The court concluded that these factors favored Shaheed. It weighed the City’s interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 against enforcing civil-rights protections. The court found that the City’s interest in preventing transmission had passed because the mandatory vaccination policy had been lifted. It also reasoned that alternative accommodations had been available, particularly because Shaheed worked as a customer service agent and did not have physical contact with the public. The court stated that reinforcing federal and California anti-discrimination laws serves the public interest and that Shaheed’s noncompliance imposed no burden on the City once the vaccination requirement was no longer in place.

Delay

Shaheed was terminated on April 1, 2022, filed his complaint on October 12, 2022, and waited more than three years before seeking preliminary injunctive relief and reinstatement. The court acknowledged that delay can weigh against finding irreparable harm. It nevertheless ruled that delay alone was not determinative and did not prevent relief in this case.

Disposition

The court granted Shaheed’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the City and County of San Francisco to reinstate him to his former position forthwith. This order granted preliminary relief; the opinion did not state that it entered a final judgment on the underlying claims.