18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

564 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition reasonable accommodations, they had not provided evidence that their positions could be performed remotely, or that such accommodations would be reasonable under the circumstances. Thus, the Court ruled that Defendant established a reasonable likelihood of success on its contention that providing Plaintiffs an exemption from the vaccination policy would impose an undue hardship to its operations. As to irreparable harm, the Court opined that without the vaccine mandate, the heightened risk to Defendant would undermine its "responsibility to maintain the highest level of patient care" and "protect patients, staff and visitors." Id . at *50. Finally, in considering the balance of equities, the Court determined that Plaintiffs would experience economic hardship if they lost their jobs, but Defendant had a strong interest in protecting its patients, visitors, and staff from exposure to COVID-19. Id . at *56. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Troogstad, et al. v. City Of Chicago, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243061 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of over 100 employees in the City of Chicago’s Fire, Water, and Transportation Departments, filed a class action and sought a preliminary injunction to block Defendants from enforcing a vaccine mandate for City employees, alleging that the mandate violated their right to bodily autonomy substantive due process, procedural due process, and free exercise of religion rights under the U.S. Constitution and Illinois law. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker had signed Executive Order 2021-22 ("EO 2021- 22"), which required all healthcare workers in the state to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing, with a religious exemption for covered individuals. Id . at *2. The City followed with the institution of its own mandatory vaccination policy ("City Vaccination Policy"), which required all City employees to be fully vaccinated (or have an approved exemption) by December 31, 2021, as a "condition of employment." Id . First, the Court explained that a rational basis review was appropriate here based on the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University, 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021), which determined that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 did not encroach upon a fundamental right. In Klaassen , a group of Indiana University students challenged the university's vaccination, masking, and testing requirements on similar grounds, and the Seventh Circuit held that "Plaintiffs lack such a right" when it comes to COVID-19 vaccination requirements, and upheld the rational basis standard of review for challenges to COVID-19 vaccine mandates under substantive due process. Id . at *7. Under that standard of review, the Court found that there was no fundamental constitutional right at stake when people are required to be vaccinated during a pandemic. The Court determined that Defendants submitted various declarations from medical professions who explained how healthcare workers and City employees faced increased risks in contracting and transmitting COVID-19, and how requiring vaccination would reduce those risks, to both themselves and to the public. The declarations also provided research from the Centers for Disease Control and peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals to back the efficacy of vaccines in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. The Court found that Defendants’ policies were not arbitrary or irrational. Therefore, because Plaintiffs had not identified a fundamental right at stake and because the challenged policies satisfied the rational basis test, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their substantive due process claims. The Court also opined that Plaintiffs had not alleged that any of them have been terminated, or even disciplined, pursuant to the Governor's order, and thus their procedural due process claims against the Governor were also unlikely to succeed on the merits. Id . at *12- 13. The Court further noted that no Plaintiffs alleged that they had applied for an exemption from EO 2021-22, let alone had been denied one. Finally, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the mandates caused them irreparable harm, and found that the balance of equities did not favor a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion. Turner, et al. v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24824 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of cruise ship passengers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s negligence contributed to an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the Costa Luminosa during a transatlantic voyage beginning on March 5, 2020. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on forum non-conveniens grounds because the passage ticket contract included a forum selection clause requiring that all claims associated with the cruise be litigated in Genoa, Italy. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. By purchasing the cruise ticket, Plaintiffs agreed to the "General Conditions of Passage Ticket Contract" (the "Contract"), which provided that “any claim, controversy, dispute, suit, or matter of any kind whatsoever arising out of, concerned with, or incident to any Cruise or in connection with this Contract shall be instituted only in the courts of Genoa, Italy, to the exclusion of the courts of any other country, state, or nation. Italian law shall apply to any such