UnifySCC v. Cody

Background

UnifySCC, an unincorporated association of employees subject to Santa Clara County’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, and County employees Tom Davis and Maria Ramirez sued Sara H. Cody and other defendants. The plaintiffs challenged the County’s system for determining which workers must be vaccinated, what exemptions are available, and what alternative arrangements are provided to employees who receive exemptions.

The plaintiffs alleged that the County made alternative arrangements for high-risk employees with medical exemptions but denied those arrangements to high-risk employees with religious exemptions, placing the latter employees on unpaid leave. They asserted claims under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. They sought a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the vaccination policy against them and preventing adverse action based on their refusal to be vaccinated.

Court’s Analysis

A temporary restraining order uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. Generally, the requesting party must show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court described this relief as an extraordinary remedy reserved for emergency situations.

The court denied the motion because the plaintiffs delayed seeking emergency relief. The County issued the relevant order on August 5, 2021, and required employees to be vaccinated or request an exemption by August 20, 2021. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 18, 2022, nearly six and a half months after the policy was issued, and filed their temporary-restraining-order motion on March 3, 2022, nearly seven months after issuance.

The court concluded that the delay undermined the plaintiffs’ claim that they faced immediate and irreparable harm. It stated that the delay was alone sufficient grounds to deny the motion.

Disposition

The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. It expressly did not reach the merits of whether the County’s policy violated the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The court also ordered the defendants to show cause on June 23, 2022, why they should not be preliminarily enjoined while the case proceeds. It required the plaintiffs to file their preliminary-injunction motion by April 1, 2022; the defendants to respond by April 29, 2022; and the plaintiffs to file a reply by May 13, 2022.