The University of Colorado’s Anschutz School of Medicine will pay $10.3 million to 18 former employees who lost their jobs after refusing to take the COVID-19 shot. The medical school agreed to the settlement after an Appellate Court found that their policy of denying employee’s religious exemptions to the COVID-19 mandate were unconstitutional.1 2
The May 2024 Appellate Court Order declared that it was unconstitutional for the medical school, a government employer, to punish some employees, but not others, due to their religious beliefs. The Appellate Court for the District of Colorado further found:
[T]he government may not test the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs by judging whether his or her beliefs are doctrinally coherent or legitimate in the eyes of the government.3
The Appellate Court made it clear that such discrimination was a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to states. Pointedly, the court used struct scrutiny analysis when deciding this case because the discrimination stemmed from animus regardless of whether the government employer admitted their hostility towards certain religions.4
CU-Anschutz Implements Strict Qualifications for Religious Exemptions
The school’s COVID-19 shot policy stated that religious exemptions would only be considered if the applicant’s religion opposed all vaccinations. The policy further stated:
[O]nly accept requests for religious exemption that cite to the official doctrine of an organized religion… as announced by the leaders of that religion.”5
Employees who filed a religious exemption were required to explain in detail why their sincerely held religious belief prevented them from receiving a COVID shot and to clarify whether they ever got a flu vaccine and if so, why this shot was different.6
The medical school proceeded to deny any religious exemption that failed to convince the administration that their religion forbids all vaccines in all circumstances. Accordingly, only employees who were Christian Scientists ad Jehovah Witnesses were granted exemptions Employees who did not get the shot and whose religious exemptions were denied were put on administrative leave and ultimately fired. Those employees bought the lawsuit against the University of Colorado medical school citing First amendment violations.7
The District Court denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction to the school’s COVID-19 shot policy finding that the policy was neutral on its face and that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case.8
Appellate Court Reverses District Court’s Findings
The Appellate Court made it clear that even when a policy such as the school’s COVID shot policy is repealed, a claim for injunctive relief survives when the plaintiffs are under constant threat that the policy could be reinstated.
Reversing the District court’s conclusion, the Appellate court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because the school’s COVID mandate clearly violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court stated that despite any alleged government interest, a policy that demands an intrusive inquiry into the validity of religious beliefs automatically violates the Establishment Clause which prevents the government from preferring one religion over another.
The Appellate Court determined that strict scrutiny analysis was merited because the school’s policy was not neutral nor generally applicable as it was hostile and discriminatory against certain religions. Strict scrutiny requires the government to show there is a compelling state interest and that the policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The court found that by specifically targeting religious conduct, the school’s policy was not narrowly tailored.
Medical School Agrees to Large Settlement
In light of this appellate Court’s scathing decision, the University of Colorado Medical School settled the case with the fired employees by agreeing to an eight-figure settlement. According to Michael McHale, senior counsel at the Thomas More Society, the plaintiffs are heroes.
At great, and sometimes career-ending, costs, our heroic clients fought for the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans who were put to the unconscionable choice of their livelihoods or their faith during what (Supreme Court) Justice (Neil) Gorsuch has rightly declared one of ‘the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. We are confident our clients’ long-overdue victory indeed confirms, despite the tyrannical efforts of many, that our shared constitutional right to religious liberty endures.9
Meanwhile Julia Milzer, spokesperson for the medical school, double-downed on the school’s unconstitutional policy, stating:
While some chose to challenge the policy, the evidence remains clear: Vaccination was essential to protecting the vulnerable, keeping hospitals open and sustaining education and research,” she said in a statement. “We stand by the decisions made in that moment, and remain deeply grateful to the health care professionals, faculty, staff and students whose courage and commitment protected our community and advanced our mission when it mattered most.10
The Problem With Exemptions
While this case is a win for informed consent and personal autonomy advocates, it exemplifies the falsehood that that exemptions should even be needed. The issue is the vaccine mandates in the first place, not the exemptions. In a free society no person should be required to prove a religious exemption for refusing to inject a product that can cause injury or death.
According to Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center:
Exemptions are a tacit approval and validation of oppressive vaccine mandates controlled by ‘medical authorities,’ who we have to beg for the legal right to decline to take a product that can injure, kill or fail to prevent infection so we can go to school, receive health care, hold a job or otherwise function in society… The sad truth is that medical vaccine exemptions cruelly ignore genetic biodiversity, violate the ethical principle of informed consent, and deny right to life which is an unalienable natural right… Vaccine mandates take away our natural right to freedom of thought and conscience.11
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:1 Williams B. CU to pay over $10M for unconstitutional vaccine mandate. Fox31 Dec. 2, 2025.
2 Wingerter M. CU to pay $10 million to settle lawsuit by former medical school employees who refused COVID vaccine. Wyoming Tribute Eagle Dec. 2, 2025.
3 Jane Does 1-11; John Does 1,3-7 vs. The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado; Todd Saliman, Donald M. Elliman, et al. Appellate Case 21-1414. United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit/ May 7, 2024.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Wingerter M. CU to pay $10 million to settle lawsuit by former medical school employees who refused COVID vaccine. Wyoming Tribute Eagle Dec. 2, 2025.
10 Ibid.
11 Fisher BL. Repeal Mandatory Vaccination Laws: There Are No Exemptions to Informed Consent. NVIC Vaccine News Aug. 27, 2025.
One Response
I get sooo mad at these despicably stupid and oppressive “medical authorities” that I would like to see them publicly hung on national television, and then their bodies cut down, chopped into little pieces, and fed to the dogs–again on national television. Fortunately, the courts still work, and this is a much, much better way of handling this kind of institutional stupidity.
One of my other gripes is that medical “education” is basically wall-to-wall memorization, and huge amounts of meaningless busy work disguised as “homework”. It trains students to be parrots, not thinking physicians. Think about THAT next time you intend to donate money to a medical school.