Harewood-Bey v. Biden

Background

Diana Harewood-Bey, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action on behalf of herself, Lisa Warburton-El, and the Federation Moorish Science Temple of America. She alleged that the defendants violated her religious rights after an employer denied her request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine and her employment was terminated after she refused vaccination. The amended complaint named President Joe Biden, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, the Floral Agency, Biljana Stajadinovic, and Marie Kingsley.

The court had previously instructed Harewood-Bey to provide a short and clear statement of her claims and facts showing how each defendant personally violated her rights. She filed an amended complaint, but the court found that it did not correct the identified problems.

Claims and analysis

The court held that Harewood-Bey could not represent Warburton-El or the Federation Moorish Science Temple of America because she was not an attorney. It therefore dismissed without prejudice all claims asserted on their behalf.

The court also held that President Biden could not be sued for presidential actions and that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch could not be sued for judicial actions connected to the COVID-19 vaccines. The court described these protections as absolute presidential and judicial immunity and dismissed those defendants as parties.

Harewood-Bey invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that restricts the federal government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless the burden satisfies specified requirements. The court explained that the Supreme Court had invalidated RFRA as applied to states and their subdivisions. Because Harewood-Bey’s allegations concerned New York’s vaccine mandate, the court dismissed the RFRA claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Harewood-Bey also invoked the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The court explained that such a constitutional claim must generally be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires a violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority. The court found that the amended complaint did not allege facts showing that the remaining defendants were state actors or explaining how they were involved in violating her rights. It therefore dismissed the Free Exercise claim.

The court said the alleged employment discrimination might support a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits discrimination because of religion and requires reasonable religious accommodations that do not cause undue hardship. But Harewood-Bey had not alleged facts showing that religion motivated the employment decision. The court also explained that individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII and that a Title VII plaintiff generally must first file an administrative charge and obtain a notice allowing suit. Harewood-Bey’s complaint did not explain whether she had completed those steps.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice all claims asserted on behalf of Lisa Warburton-El and the Federation Moorish Science Temple of America. It dismissed Harewood-Bey’s claims against President Biden and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch based on absolute immunity. It also dismissed Harewood-Bey’s RFRA and Free Exercise claims.

The court granted Harewood-Bey leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. The new complaint could provide facts supporting a Title VII claim against the Floral Agency or another claim against the remaining defendants under a relevant statute. The court instructed her to identify what each defendant did or failed to do, describe the relevant events and injuries, and state the relief requested. If she failed to file a compliant second amended complaint within the allowed time without showing good cause, the action would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.