Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 10 March 2022, N. 22-10242-RGS

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
N. 22-10242-RGS
Decision date
10 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Vaccination
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.casetext.com

Case analisys

General Summary

The Plaintiffs, employees of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard, and ‎Nantucket Steamship Authority, sought preliminary injunctive relief ‎from the Authority's policy mandating vaccination against COVID-19 as ‎a condition of their continued employment. The Authority's policy, ‎according to plaintiffs, violated their statutory and constitutional ‎rights. Most of the plaintiffs sought religious exemptions from the ‎vaccination Policy. After a review of the plaintiffs' requests, which ‎included the completion of a comprehensive questionnaire and a face-to-‎face interview, the Authority rejected the accommodation requests as ‎imposing an undue hardship on day-to-day operations.‎

On February 11, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an action in Barnstable Superior ‎Court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The Authority then ‎removed the case to the federal district court. Plaintiffs renewed their ‎motion for preliminary injunctive relief. After analyzing the reasoning of ‎the parties, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. ‎

Facts of the case

Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket Steamship Authority ‎was created by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1960 to provide ferry ‎service to the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, and it ‎regularly "services members from all walks of life, including young ‎children, elderly individuals, and the immunocompromised." ‎

On January 3, 2022, the Authority issued a COVID-19 Vaccination ‎Verification Policy covering all employees. The Policy stated that "all ‎employees must receive at least one (1) dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by ‎January 5, 2022 and must be fully vaccinated by February 16, 2022.” ‎Employees who refused the vaccine would be subject to progressive ‎disciplinary steps, up to and including termination.‎

Most of the plaintiffs sought religious exemptions from the ‎vaccination Policy. After a review of the plaintiffs' requests, which ‎included the completion of a comprehensive questionnaire and a face-to-‎face interview, the Authority rejected their accommodation requests as ‎imposing an undue hardship on day-to-day operations. More specifically, ‎the Authority found that because of plaintiffs' public-facing roles, the ‎requested exemptions would "unreasonably risk" the health and safety of ‎fellow employees, customers, vendors, and the plaintiffs themselves, and ‎thereby "undermine public trust and confidence in the safety of the ‎Authority's facilities and vessels." ‎

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Injunctive relief
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Urgency
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed the request for injunctive relief and reasoned ‎that:
1) Regarding the alleged violation of religious rights, there was ‎not any proof that the Authority’s vaccination mandate restrained ‎plaintiffs from practising worshipping rituals nor did it impose a burden ‎to some religions more than to others;
2) Regarding the alleged violation ‎of privacy, personal autonomy and personal identity, there was not a ‎violation of those rights since the mandate was a condition to ‎employment with the Authority and not a physically enforceable ‎measure.‎

The Court cited case law which stated that the Government does ‎not have an obligation to exempt citizens from vaccination based on ‎religious beliefs. It also stated that the Supreme Court does not ‎recongnize mandatory vaccination as a violation of privacy or ‎fundamental rights, and that the "general liberty interest in refusing ‎medical treatment" acknowledged by the Supreme Court was not “a ‎fundamental liberty interest.”‎ Finally, it argued that “the public interest in safely accessing ferry ‎service to Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard without fear of ‎contracting COVID-19 from the Authority's unvaccinated employees ‎is profound.”‎

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court rejected the motion for injunctive relief.‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom of religion
  • Right to bodily integrity
  • Right to privacy
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • Right to religious worship, Art. 2, Massachusetts ‎Declaration of Rights‎
  • Right to free religious exercise, First Amendment, United States Constitution‎
  • Right to be free of religious discrimination, Mass. ‎Gen. Laws, c. 151B, § 4‎
  • Rights to privacy, personal autonomy, and personal identity, Fourteenth Amendment‎
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. freedom of religion
  • Health v. right to privacy (private and family life)
  • Health v. right to bodily integrity
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court cited precedents from the Supreme Court and other case law ‎to balance the conflicting rights. It therefore concluded that a ‎violation of fundamental rights had not occurred, in the terms ‎interpreted by the Supreme Court and other national Courts.‎

Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 17 June 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 10 March 2022, N. 22-10242-RGS
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies