Ralph Duran, Michael Esparza v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; California Department of Human Resources; Joe Tyler; Eraina Ortega
Published: Nov. 17, 2023 | Result Date: Aug. 7, 2023 | Filing Date: Oct. 17, 2022 |Case number: 3:22-cv-06120-CRB Bench Decision – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Gary M. Messing
(Messing, Adam & Jasmine LLP)
Matthew B. Taylor
(Messing, Adam & Jasmine LLP)
Defendant
Paloma Carrero
(Office of the Attorney General)
Lauren E. Powe
(California Department of Justice)
Facts
In August 2021, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) implemented a policy whereby employees were required to either show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. Failure to comply with the policy would result in certain disciplinary action, including dismissal.
The test was administered by a third party vendor: Color Health Inc. Test takers were required to disclose personal information and sign privacy waivers that allowed Color to disclose the test takers' confidential information to other third parties such as governmental agencies, medical providers, and possibly foreign corporations. It was up to Color's discretion to disclose the information. By September 2022 though, Cal Fire began to transition away from mandatory testing.
Two Cal Fire employees, Ralph Duran and Michael Esparaza, declined to provide proof of vaccination and therefore were subject to the mandatory testing during the relevant time period when it was required. They filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs asserted that though defendants could require their employees to be tested, defendants could not force employees to waive their privacy rights to personal and medical information. Plaintiffs contended that defendants were harmed by these compulsory privacy waivers and the third party's retention of the employees' confidential information. Furthermore, Cal Fire could reactivate the third-party testing at any time.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued that they had three grounds of defense: sovereign immunity, standing, and mootness.
Result
The court agreed with defendants, and granted their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Other Information
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 5, 2023.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390