Facts

Around 2021, the Goleta Water District implemented a policy requiring all its employees to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus, offering paid time off for its compliance. However, employees can request exemptions from the requirement for religious or medical reasons, which was granted on a case-by-case basis. Those who were exempted were required to take the COVID-19 tests about twice a week, at the employee's expense. Also, unvaccinated employees were required to wear N95 masks and could not enter certain buildings without authorization. If the unvaccinated employee did not want to accept these terms, they were allowed to take a temporary leave of absence. When Shawn Dollar, John Waynes, Raymundo Barbosa, Vincent Cerda, and Daniel Durbiano all requested exemptions on religious grounds, their requests were granted. On June 1, 2022, they filed suit against the Water District and others, including certain board members violation of the U.S. and California Constitutions' Free Exercise Clause; violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, violation of the Equal Protection Clause and violation of civil rights under Section 1983.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants' policy unjustifiably discriminated against religion under the Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection Clause by penalizing employees who refused to take the vaccine for religious reasons. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' policy was not an accommodation but rather was implemented in a manner that violated plaintiffs' equal protection rights. Moreover, the policy discriminated against their religious beliefs as it enforced certain requirements that discriminated against their religion even though they had a religious exemption.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued that the aim of the policy was protecting health and safety and had no religious basis. Furthermore, plaintiffs were not treated any differently than other similarly situated employees.

Result

On October 3, 2022, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. However, on December 29, 2022, plaintiffs accepted defendants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offers of judgment. Accordingly, each plaintiff accepted $25,000 which was inclusive of all monetary and nonmonetary claims as well as costs and attorneys' fees. Total judgment offered by defendants was $125,000.