18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

560 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition cross-examine any adverse witness. Plaintiff also had rights to appeal to higher courts should the need arise. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. State Of Florida, et al. v. Nelson, Case No. 21-CV-2524 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, the State of Florida and various state agencies, brought a class action and sought a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation and enforcement Executive Order 14042, which mandated contractor and sub-contractor compliance with COVID-19 vaccination requirements. The Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court noted that Congress delegated to the President the authority to manage federal procurement through the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (“FPASA”) in order to “promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with sources that provide adequate COVID-19 safeguards for their workforce.” Id. at 20. As it framed the issues, the Court analyzed whether President Biden exceeded his delegated authority under the FPASA in promulgating Executive Order 14042. The Court found that President Biden did exceed his authority. The Court opined that it was unconvinced that the FPASA explicitly and unquestionable authorized the President to enforce the type of actions by agencies contained in Executive Order 14042. The Court reasoned that although the executive order purported to advance “economy” and “efficiency” by reducing absenteeism due to COVID infections, there was nothing to advance an explanation commensurate with the expansiveness and invasiveness of the order. The Court observed that the extent of any procurement problem, in the past or in the future, attributable to COVID-19 was not demonstrated and a “hastily manufactured” and “unproven hypothesis about recent history and a contrived speculation about the future.” Id . at 29. The Court also found that the executive order was insufficiently tethered to application of the vaccine requirement to any documented need to reduce absenteeism among federal contractors’ employees or to solve any real procurement problem. The Court ruled that the executive order likely exceeded the structure and purpose of the FPASA. The Court further determined that absent an injunction, Plaintiffs would be subject to the irreparable harm to their sovereign interests. Finally, the Court concluded that the balance of the harms and public interest supported granting the preliminary injunction because the public interest supported protecting an individual reluctant employee from likely-unlawful government action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. State Of Georgia, et al. v. Biden, Case No. 21-CV-163 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of several states, Governors, and state agencies, brought a class action and sought a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation and enforcement Executive Order 14042, which mandated contractor and sub-contractor compliance with COVID-19 vaccination requirements. Additionally, the Americans Builders and Contractors Inc. (“ABC”) intervened in the action and filed its own motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court noted that Congress delegated to the President the authority to manage federal procurement through the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (“FPASA”), in order to “promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with sources that provide adequate COVID- 19 safeguards for their workforce.” Id . at 17. As it framed the issues, the Court questioned whether President Biden exceeded his delegated authority under the FPASA in promulgating Executive Order 14042. The Court found that President Biden did exceed his authority. The Court opined that the goal of Congress in enacting the FPASA was to create an "economical and efficient system for…procurement and supply." Id . The Court further observed that the FPASA granted “the President particularly direct and broad-ranging authority over those larger administrative and management issues that involve the Government as a whole.” Id . at 18. The Court noted that it was unconvinced that the FPASA explicitly and unquestionable authorized the President to enforce the type of actions by agencies contained in Executive Order 14042. The Court determined that Plaintiffs would face extreme economic burdens in order to comply with the order, and that the direct impact of the Executive Order went far beyond the administration and management of procurement and contracting. The Court observed that the Executive Order was a regulation on public health, and would have a major impact on the economy at large. The Court further held that Plaintiffs demonstrated that the Executive Order did not have a sufficient nexus to the purposes of the FPASA and therefore did not fall within the authority granted to the President. The Court also agreed that Defendants could not point to a single instance when the statute was used to promulgate such a wide and sweeping public health regulation such as mandatory vaccinations for all federal contractors and sub-contractors. The Court thus ruled that the President exceeded his authority under the FPASA. Additionally, for the serious legal concerns addressed, the Court held that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits as to their preliminary injunction. Furthermore, the Court held that Plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm