Keene v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on September 23, 2022. A preliminary injunction is an order issued before a final decision that temporarily requires or prevents conduct. On May 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the matter for additional analysis.

The plaintiffs then moved for an order consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s remand memorandum. The Ninth Circuit had found that the district court improperly concluded that the record did not establish the sincerity of the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. It also found that the district court had not addressed the plaintiffs’ argument that they had lost the opportunity to pursue their chosen profession and had not fully analyzed the balance of equities and the public interest.

The plaintiffs testified that they were Christians who believed in the sanctity of life and opposed vaccines partly because vaccine-efficiency tests began with fetal cells from elective abortions. They also testified that their opposition was based on additional beliefs that the vaccines were dangerous, insufficiently tested, and ineffective.

Court’s Analysis

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of equities favors the party, and that an injunction serves the public interest. The court stated that the irreparable-harm factor was dispositive.

The court held that loss of employment was not irreparable harm because monetary damages could compensate for it. It rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to characterize the injury as the loss of their careers. The court noted that the plaintiffs wanted to work in a field helping people in need, but their testimony showed that this goal was not limited to their positions with the City. The court also noted that both plaintiffs lived in Contra Costa County, which had a Human Services Agency providing similar outreach work.

The court distinguished cases involving unusual circumstances in which a person could not retain other employment or was completely barred from a profession. It concluded that the plaintiffs’ alleged employment and financial injuries were common to similar employment disputes, compensable with money damages, or both.

The court further ruled that, even if the plaintiffs faced some irreparable harm, the balance of hardships and the public interest favored denying the injunction. It found that the plaintiffs’ alleged loss of employment and financial injuries did not outweigh the possible harm from increased COVID-19 spread, including sickness, hospitalization, and death. The court stated that the City’s vaccination mandate was designed to protect the health and safety of City workers and clients and that the public interest did not require the City to allow employees to expose their workplace or the communities they served to that risk.

Disposition

The court again denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In light of that ruling, it also denied as moot the plaintiffs’ request for an expedited status conference. This order addressed temporary injunctive relief; the opinion does not state that the court entered a final judgment on the underlying claims.