Federal and district courts across the United States continue to rule in favour of plaintiffs disputing various COVID-19 mandates. Defendants in the multitude of lawsuits include federal and state institutions, universities, hospitals, airlines and institutions such as the Mayo Clinic.A federal jury on Monday found Tanja Benton, a former BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee employee who was fired for refusing to comply with the company’s vaccine mandate, was wrongfully dismissed and awarded a settlement of over $687,000. Benton "proved by a preponderance of the evidence” she refused the vaccine based on her "sincerely held religious belief," the settlement, obtained by local broadcaster WTVC, states. .The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals , on June 28, confirmed employers that failed to accommodate requests for exemptions from its COVID-19 vaccination policy based on employees’ religious objections violate the law. Najean Lucky, a non-denominational Christian, was denied employment as a manager for a medical provider because she wouldn’t take the vaccine on religious grounds, and the company would not provide an exemption, per the National Law Review. Lucky sued under Title VII and though her case was initially dismissed, it was reinstated and sent back to the lower courts. .The Mayo Clinic is facing heat for alleged religious bias in enforcing its COVID-19 vaccination policy, along with discriminating against an employee for free speech related issues surrounding the injections. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in May revived a lawsuit that was tossed out last year launched by five former employees alleging the Minnesota-based clinic unlawfully fired them for refusing the vaccine and PCR testing due to their Christian beliefs. The panel of three judges found the lawsuit was wrongly dismissed and the Mayo Clinic failed to acknowledge their objections as sincere. “The district court erred by emphasizing that many Christians elect to receive the vaccine. Beliefs do not have to be uniform across all members of a religion or acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others,” wrote Judge Duane Benton in the ruling. The clinic faces a separate pandemic-era lawsuit, launched by Dr. Michael Joyner, who was suspended from the clinic because he spoke to journalists in a personal capacity about his research, per The Fire. He “failed to communicate in accordance with prescribed messaging,” and was suspended. Minnesota Judge Kathy Wallace on Monday denied most of the clinic’s motion to dismiss Joyner’s lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic, CEO Dr. Gianrico Farrugia and Dr. Carlos Mantilla, per Post Bulletin. A trial by jury is scheduled in July 2025..The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeal in San Francisco, CA in June sent a school vaccine mandate case back to the lower courts, having ruled in favour of plaintiffs’ claims the mRNA shot is a “medical treatment” and not a “traditional vaccine.”.The US District Court for Northern Texas in Fort Worth in February upheld a Navy Seals' lawsuit over vaccine mandates, despite an earlier court ruling the case is moot, The Texan reported. Members can continue to pursue their case against the Navy for enforcing a COVID-19 vaccination mandate that violated their religious beliefs. Though the mandate has been lifted, “discriminatory treatment of the class members …because of the mandate still linger,” wrote Judge Reed O’Connor in the court files..United Airlines faces a $1 billion class action lawsuit for its vaccine mandate based on religious discrimination. A 5th Circuit Texas judge granted on June 21 a nationwide class action suit to more than 2,200 employees suspended without pay for not getting vaccinated, the Washington Examiner reported. The case is among the largest religious discrimination class action lawsuits in history. .The Ninth Circuit court in the Eastern District of Washington last month ruled lower courts wrongfully dismissed a lawsuit on religious grounds. Judges found lower courts must recognize it was unlawful to dismiss firefighters who refused to comply with the vaccine mandate on religious grounds and then bring in from other districts firefighters who were under a vaccine exemption. It was a violation of those firefighters' religious rights, the court decided, per Religious Liberty TV. .On May 7, the 10th Circuit Court of Appealsfederal court ruled in favour of two employees and 17 students alleging the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus’ COVID-19 vaccination mandate was discriminatory on religious grounds, per the Epoch Times. The case was initially thrown out by a US district judge in 2022. The mandate “clearly violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted by our precedents,” judges wrote in their recent decision.
