Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note involving COVID-19, (Aug 1, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent COVID-19 decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

5th Cir.: Hospital’s vaccination policy was not ‘state action’ under Section 1983. Healthcare professionals at a hospital, terminated for refusing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, sued the hospital and the chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission, alleging violations of their rights under Section 1983, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statute, and Texas state law. They contended that the hospital, acting as “a state actor as a COVID-19 vaccine provider under the CDC Program,” infringed upon their rights to refuse vaccination without consequences. Additionally, they claimed the chairman improperly denied unemployment benefits to some of them. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit, affirming, found that the hospital’s vaccination policy did not constitute state action under Section 1983 and that the hospital did not violate the employees’ rights under the EUA statute. The claims against the chairman were deemed forfeited due to inadequate legal and factual analysis in the employees’ appellate briefing (Bridges v. The Methodist Hospital, No. 24-20483 (5th Cir. June 17, 2025, unpublished)).

N.D. Ohio: Employee provided insufficient evidence of sincere religious belief. A former employee sued her employer for religious discrimination under Title VII and Ohio law after she was terminated for failure to comply with her employer’s COVID-19 test policy, required after the company exempted the employee from its vaccine mandate. The employee moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the employer failed to accommodate her religious beliefs. The court, however, found that the pleadings did not establish that the employee held “a sincere religious belief that conflicted with her employment requirements,” and denied the motion (Prida v. Option Care Enterprises, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00905-SL (N.D. Ohio July 17, 2025)).

W.D. Wash.: No evidence counsel’s statements during closing argument misled jury. An employee terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination alleged that his employer, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), failed to accommodate his religious beliefs under the Washington Law Against Discrimination and Title VII. After a jury trial resulted in a deadlock and subsequent mistrial, the employee moved for sanctions against DSHS’s counsel, claiming that statements made during closing arguments—including that “DSHS was not required to eliminate the essential functions of plaintiff’s job if it was going to be—if it was going to create an undue hardship”—caused the mistrial. The court found no evidence counsel’s statements were intended to mislead the jury. The court noted that it had provided curative instructions to address any potential confusion caused by the statements and that the record did not show the statements caused the jury’s deadlock. The motion for sanctions was denied (Strandquist v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, No. 3:23-cv-05071-TMC (W.D. Wash. June 17, 2025)).

W.D. Wash.: COVID-19 vaccine accommodation would have risked infections, caused undue hardship. An employee of a county transit system sought a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, citing her belief that her “body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” and her objection to vaccines developed using aborted fetal cells. The employer, having granted the exemption, explored various accommodations but ultimately denied her request, concluding that no feasible accommodation could mitigate the health risks posed by an unvaccinated transit operator. The employee was subsequently terminated. The employee sued the county alleging it failed to accommodate her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII and the WLAD. The county moved for summary judgment arguing that the employee’s objections to the COVID-19 vaccine were not religious in nature and could not be accommodated without undue hardship. The court determined that “accommodating an unvaccinated transit operator would significantly increase the risk of COVID-19 infections for the operator and the riding public,” and would pose “an undue hardship on the employer.” The court granted the motion for summary judgment (Jackson v. King County, No. 2:23-cv-00774-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2025)).

Cases: Covid19 ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Procedure RemediesDamages