Tuesday, February 18, 2025

GET OUR FREE E-NEWSLETTER

“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce

Search

San Francisco Transit Workers Awarded $7.8M for Denial of Religious Exemption to COVID Shots

San Francisco Transit Workers Awarded .8M for Denial of Religious Exemption to COVID Shots

A federal court in San Francisco, California has confirmed a ruling granting $7.8 million to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) employees who were fired for failing to get COVID-19 shots.1

In October 2024, a federal jury awarded the transit workers $1.3 million each in a class action lawsuit in which a half a dozen transit employees in the Bay Area were denied religious exemptions and or accommodations when they requested a religious exemption to the COVID shot mandate.2

The employees alleged that BART granted some religious exemptions to COVID shots requested by employees, yet denied accommodations for every worker who refused COVID shots based on religious beliefs, which is a in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. While 70 of the 179 religious exemptions were granted, none of the employees received accommodations.3

Employers may offer accommodations such as providing medical leave, relocating the work area, changing job duties or changing schedules when an employee files a religious exemption. All of the employees who sought a religious exemption and an accommodation were eventually forced to resign, fired or retired. This is in sharp contrast to the BART employees who pursued a medical exemption to COVID shots. One in three of employees seeking a medical exemption was offered an accommodation.4

The main plaintiff, David Joules, a long-time BART employee, alleged that he was fired for not only refusing to get the novel shot, but also for being outspoken about his opposition to the COVID shot mandate. Joules maintained that BART failed to listen to employee feedback and put employee’s health and safety in jeopardy.55 Joules’s attempts to engage with BART about the potential COVID-19 mandate and its impact on the employees repeatedly fell on deaf ears.6

The jury was presented with the question, “Has BART proven that the plaintiff could not be reasonably accommodated without undue hardship?”7 The jury resoundingly said no and found that BART failed to demonstrate undue hardship when they refused to provide accommodations to the workers. The jury also found that six of the plaintiffs clearly showed a genuine conflict between the shot and their religious beliefs and awarded $7.8 million in damages to the plaintiffs.8

Minor Trial Issues Do Not Warrant Overturning the Verdict

BART attempted to overturn the verdict and force a new trial. While Judge William A. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed that there were minor issues with the trial, such as imperfect jury instructions, but concluded that overturning the jury’s decision and forcing a new trial was not warranted. In addition, Judge Alsup pointed out that BART did not show that it would have been an undue hardship to accommodate the workers religious exemptions.9

BART relied on expert testimony that the COVID shots were the best way to prevent the spread of the virus with no alternative measures proving as effective. To that effect, BART alleged in the post-trial motion that their claims were supported by “unrebutted scientific expert testimony.” However, the court rejected BART’s claim and instead stated that it was up to the jury to decide what credibility and weight they would impart to the expert testimony.

Alsup stated:

In light of the large sums paid to the experts by BART, our jury was entitled to find that they were ‘bought and paid for,’ were merely parroting the ‘company line,’ and were not credible in light of their bias, common sense, and other evidence. An expert witness is like any other witness, and it is up to the jury to decide how much weight their testimony deserves.

 The opinion further found that the testimony of a BART supervisor stating that masking and social distancing were effective precautions contradicted their expert. The court pointed out that BART did not have clear documentation on its decision process and the evidence relied upon when requiring the shot as a condition of employment.10

The Extraordinary Verdict Sets Precedent

Alsup made it clear that the case hinged upon whether BART would have been able to accommodate the employees without undue hardship and was not a statement about the shot’s efficacy or whether BART exceeded its rights as an employer.11 The extraordinary verdict demonstrates the repercussions corporations could face enforcing blanket health mandates without being transparent about the decision process or consulting employees.


If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

One Response

  1. Oh wow. The BART managers and employees whom engaged in systematic conscious concerted effort of colluding among each other and unrelated industries as well as the government to deprive people of their constitutional rights, they all get to keep their jobs and face no personal financial penalty or fear of incarceration for felonious activity. Who would have guessed that?

    Safe AND Effective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search in Archive