California: Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Firefighters Placed on “Involuntary” Unpaid Leave for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccination

by Karen Faulkner, Worthy News Correspondent

(Worthy News) – The US Sixth District Court of Appeals on November 1 ruled in favor of and awarded costs to a group of firefighters in California who were placed on “involuntary, unpaid leave” for failing to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates on religious grounds, CBN News reports.

Employees of California’s Santa Clara County, the plaintiffs were firefighters in the city of San Jose who requested a religious exemption from vaccination on the grounds that “the use of fetal cells in the inoculations” and “being forced to inject their bodies as a temple of the Holy Spirit with something potentially harmful” violated their beliefs, CBN reports.

While San Jose city originally allowed the exemption, Santa Clara County overruled and rejected their request in 2021: the county maintained its rule that workers in higher-risk settings were required to be vaccinated and boosted by January 24, 2022, CBN reports. This rule extended to first responders including nurses, sheriffs, and firefighters.

The plaintiffs were told they could be placed on unpaid leave for five weeks before the county amended the mandate. However, reversing a lower court ruling which had favored the county, US Sixth District Court of Appeals Justice Daniel H. Bromberg wrote: “The unpaid leave alleged by plaintiffs was involuntary and extended. It allegedly barred plaintiffs from their workplace when they want to work, and it allegedly deprived them of pay (as well as pension and seniority rights) for weeks, not just days….

“Because the…complaint plausibly alleged the extended and involuntary unpaid leave imposed on plaintiffs did not reasonably preserve their employment status, we conclude that, for purposes of the pleadings, the leave was not a reasonable accommodation,” Bromberg continued.

“The City has failed to offer any persuasive reason why involuntary unpaid leave exceeding a month should not be considered an adverse employment action, much less to cite any authority taking such a position,” Bromberg added.

Latest Worthy News