Chavez v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Background

BART adopted a policy requiring employees and board members to receive COVID-19 vaccinations by December 13, 2021, subject to medical or religious exemptions and accommodations. BART received 188 religious exemption or accommodation requests. Forty people did not complete the application process. Of the 148 completed applications, BART granted 70 religious exemptions and denied 78. BART ultimately granted no religious accommodations. The opinion states that 73 employees lost their jobs after their religious exemption or accommodation requests were denied.

The amended complaint identified 17 former employees holding more than a dozen different jobs and represented by various unions or no union. Their stated religious beliefs and reasons for objecting to vaccination varied. The plaintiffs sought certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), covering employees who were subject to the mandate, had sincerely held religious beliefs preventing vaccination, requested religious exemptions or accommodations, and were denied an accommodation. They also proposed an alternative class focused on employees whose religious exemption requests were denied.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise through Section 1983, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The order addressed only whether the proposed class could be certified; it did not resolve the underlying claims.

Class-certification standards

Rule 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy four initial requirements: enough members that joining everyone individually is impracticable, common legal or factual questions, representative claims typical of the class, and representatives and lawyers who will adequately protect the class. A damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) must also show that common questions are more important than individual questions, a requirement called predominance, and that a class action is the best available method for resolving the dispute, called superiority.

The court focused on predominance and superiority. Because the proposed classes failed both requirements, the court did not need to decide whether they satisfied the initial Rule 23(a) requirements.

Predominance

For the Title VII and Fair Employment and Housing Act claims, the court concluded that individual factual issues would predominate. Whether each employee had a genuine religious belief, rather than a political objection or personal preference, would require examining that employee’s application, written statements, interview responses, and supporting materials.

The undue-hardship and reasonable-accommodation issues also required individualized analysis. The proposed class members held different jobs, including positions such as train conductor, manager of technology programs, fire protection worker, police officer, and senior operations supervisor liaison. The court stated that the possible accommodations and their effects on workplace safety could differ substantially depending on each employee’s duties.

The court also considered employees’ different union agreements and the rights of coworkers, including seniority rights. Those agreements could affect the accommodations available and the hardships BART would face. The alternative class did not solve the problem because employees whose exemption requests were denied before reaching the accommodation stage still would need individualized determinations about whether their beliefs were genuinely religious.

The court gave limited weight to the fact that BART granted eight medical exemptions but no religious accommodations. The medical exemptions were temporary, placed employees on unpaid leave, and did not allow them to work while unvaccinated. The court found that this evidence did not overcome the individualized questions concerning the religious requests.

The First Amendment religious-exercise claim also failed the predominance requirement. The court stated that each claimant’s belief had to be examined for sincerity and religious, rather than purely secular, character. Because the employees relied on different scriptures, personal experiences, health concerns, medical information, laws, and other grounds, the court found that the claim required an unmanageable collection of individual factual inquiries.

Superiority

The court separately held that a class action was not superior to other available methods. The proposed class members had substantial financial interests, including lost earnings and benefits, and plaintiffs described the dispute as involving serious personal and emotional stakes. Two potential class members had already filed individual actions against BART, and another 17 employees had filed a separate related case. The court stated that 36 of the 73 employees who lost their jobs because of rejected religious exemption or accommodation requests had already gone to court.

The court also found that managing a class action would be difficult because of the wide range of individual issues and evidence required for each employee.

Disposition

Judge Alsup denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. The order did not dismiss the case, enter judgment on the claims, or decide whether BART’s vaccination policy or accommodation process violated federal or California law.