Rodriguez v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Background

VTA implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy in January 2022 requiring employees to be fully vaccinated or receive an exemption by April 29, 2022. Employees could request an exemption based on a sincerely held religious belief. VTA used an initial request form, sometimes required a clarification form, and evaluated requests through a committee. More than 100 employees sought religious exemptions, and most requests were granted. The plaintiffs were among those whose requests were denied.

Seven of the twelve original plaintiffs remained in the case after five settled. The remaining plaintiffs asserted claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA. The parties filed supplemental cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Summary judgment is judgment before trial when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is legally entitled to win.

Free Exercise Claims

VTA argued that the plaintiffs lacked evidence of sincerely held religious beliefs that conflicted with the vaccination requirement. The court rejected that argument at the summary-judgment stage. For the plaintiffs who relied on “body temple” beliefs—Rolland, Bircher, Poythress, and Kennedy—the court found evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that their beliefs were sincere and religious. For Rodriguez, Sanchez, and Mena, the court likewise found factual disputes concerning their religious objections to the use of fetal cells in vaccine development. The court emphasized that it could not weigh competing evidence or decide witness credibility on summary judgment.

The plaintiffs argued that VTA’s religious exemption process was not neutral and was not generally applicable, which would require the government to satisfy the most demanding constitutional review. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on those issues because the parties disputed what policy actually governed the exemption process and how the committee applied it. The record could support either a conclusion that VTA used impermissible individualized discretion or a conclusion that it applied objective, business-related criteria. The court also denied VTA’s motion on the Free Exercise claims because those factual disputes remained unresolved.

Establishment Clause Claim

The court also denied summary judgment for both sides on the Establishment Clause claim. It held that the governing legal test depended on facts that had not been established, including whether VTA’s exemption policy facially favored some religions over others and how the process operated in practice. If the policy facially differentiated among religions, strict scrutiny could apply. If not, the court would use the historical-practices approach required by more recent Supreme Court precedent. The court noted that any facial challenge to the vaccination mandate or exemption process was moot because VTA revoked the requirement in November 2022, but it did not grant either side summary judgment on the remaining Establishment Clause issues.

FEHA Claims and Governmental Immunity

VTA argued that California Government Code section 855.4 immunized it from the plaintiffs’ FEHA claims. That provision protects a public entity from liability for injuries resulting from discretionary decisions made to promote public health and for acts carried out with due care in implementing those decisions.

The court agreed that section 855.4 barred the plaintiffs’ FEHA claims for damages. It found that VTA’s vaccination mandate and exemption process involved discretionary public-health decisions intended to prevent COVID-19 infection and transmission. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that VTA’s handling of religious exemptions was merely ministerial rather than discretionary. It also concluded that any request for injunctive or declaratory relief was moot because VTA had revoked the vaccination requirement. The court therefore granted VTA’s motion for summary judgment on the FEHA claims and denied the plaintiffs’ motion on those claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. It granted the plaintiffs’ motion only as to the state-action element of their federal claims and otherwise denied the motion. It denied the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice.

The court granted in part and denied in part VTA’s motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion as to the plaintiffs’ FEHA claims and otherwise denied it. It granted VTA’s request for judicial notice. The federal claims therefore remained unresolved on the merits and were left for further proceedings, while the FEHA claims were resolved in VTA’s favor.