United KP Freedom Alliance v. Kaiser Permanente

Background

The plaintiffs challenged Kaiser Permanente’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. They filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is an order issued during a case to prevent a party from taking specified action, and later filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which seeks immediate temporary relief. The second motion followed Kaiser’s announcement that it would begin terminating noncompliant employees on December 1, 2021. The court expedited briefing and considered both motions together.

Federal constitutional claims

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood, or even a possibility, of success on their federal constitutional arguments. Kaiser is a private employer, and the vaccination policy was voluntarily adopted by Kaiser rather than enforced through coercive state action. Because Kaiser’s conduct could not reasonably be attributed to the state, the court found no basis for the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims against the policy.

California constitutional privacy claim

The court recognized that California’s constitutional privacy right can apply to private parties and can cover personal decisions and activities. But that right is not absolute; a privacy intrusion may be justified by a competing important interest, and a court generally asks whether a private policy is reasonable.

The court found that Kaiser had important interests in protecting the health and safety of its workforce and the people with whom its employees interacted, including medical patients. The plaintiffs submitted declarations challenging the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, but the court said much of that testimony appeared unlikely to satisfy Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which governs whether expert testimony is admissible. The court also noted Kaiser’s empirical evidence supporting vaccine effectiveness and the recognized role of compulsory immunization in preventing contagious disease. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not raised a serious question under the California Constitution.

Other preliminary-relief factors

Because the plaintiffs had not raised serious questions about the merits, the court said it did not need to examine the remaining requirements for emergency relief. It nevertheless found that those requirements were not met. The plaintiffs did not show irreparable harm, meaning harm that cannot adequately be repaired later through money or other relief. Although losing a job could harm employees who refused vaccination and lacked an exemption, the plaintiffs submitted no declaration describing specific consequences such as eviction, hunger, or loss of necessary medical care.

The court found the balance of hardships to be, at most, even. The plaintiffs could lose their jobs, while Kaiser could be harmed by delaying a policy it had reasonably determined was necessary to protect its workforce and patients. The court also found that the public interest favored Kaiser because of the severity of the pandemic and the medical and scientific consensus supporting vaccination as an effective tool against the crisis.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction. It also denied the request for oral argument, stating that the case was not close.