Facts

On August 13, 2021, the Los Angeles Unified School District Board enacted a mandatory Covid-19 vaccination requirement for all employees and other adults working at the LAUSD. The policy required that employees must have received their first vaccine dose by October 15, 2021, or be terminated effective November 1, 2021, but the policy allowed for exemptions, including for sincerely held religious beliefs, disability, and serious medical conditions.

Miguel Sotelo, Jeffrey Fuentes, Sandra Garcia, Hovhannes Saponghian, and Norma Bramila were all citizens of Los Angeles County who were or are employed by LAUSD in various positions. Each of them refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and they were placed on unpaid leave, terminated, or faced imminent termination. These employees and former employees joined together with the Health Freedom Defense Fund, which is a Wyoming corporation with its headquarters in Idaho, and California Educators for Medical Freedom, which is a voluntary, unincorporated association of California state education employees, and filed suit in federal district court against LAUSD's superintendent, Alberto Carvalho, its Chief Human Resource Officer, Ileana Davalos, as well as the LAUSD's governing board members, George McKenna, Monica Garcia, Scott Schmerelson, Nick Melvoin, Jackie GoldberGoldberg, Kelly Gonez, and Tanya Ortiz Franklin, in their official capacities.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy was a violation of the law and their constitutional rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged the COVID-19 vaccine should not be considered a vaccine but rather a medical treatment, and that the policy violated their right to refuse medical treatment. They contended that the mandatory policy violated their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs also sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and various other California laws, including the California Constitution, public disclosure of private facts, and breach of security for computerized personal information.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability. Defendants contended that the policy did not implicate any fundamental rights, and was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. They further contended that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Moreover, Defendants contended that: the other claims were insufficiently pled including the ADA claim which must fail because none of the plaintiffs alleged having any disability or mental impairment; the District's supervening public concern of protecting its workforce and its students from COVID-19 transmission and infection clearly outweighed any alleged privacy rights made by Plaintiffs; Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal.3d 194 (1975) does not provide for a private right of action; and Defendants are not an "Agency," as defined by California law under Cal. Civil Code § 1798.3 and therefore not within the scope of the statute.

Result

The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the action was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.

Other Information

Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment.