A federal judge has upheld a $7.8 million jury award to six former Bay Area transit workers who were fired after refusing the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds.
Key Facts:
– Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tried to overturn a jury verdict but was denied.
– Each of the six terminated employees will receive between $1.2 million and $1.5 million.
– The judge rejected BART’s arguments that masking or testing alternatives would create undue hardships.
– BART’s expert witnesses were paid significant sums, which jurors may have factored into credibility.
– The judge found only minor flaws in the trial process, not enough to invalidate the verdict.
The Rest of The Story:
In late 2023, six employees filed a legal challenge after being dismissed for refusing COVID-19 vaccinations.
They claimed religious exemptions, arguing that BART should have accommodated their beliefs through measures like masking or remote work.
BART, however, maintained that vaccinating employees was essential for public safety.
During the trial, BART presented multiple expert witnesses to support its stance that vaccination is the most effective defense against COVID-19.
Yet the employees’ attorneys cast doubt on these experts’ independence by highlighting their substantial fees.
Additionally, the judge noted the agency offered minimal documentation showing how the board assessed any specific evidence when adopting a mandatory vaccine policy.
Judge William A. Alsup let the original verdict stand, citing insufficient proof that a more flexible approach to vaccination would have caused significant problems for BART.
While the ruling admitted there were a few procedural oversights, it concluded they did not undermine the essence of the trial or the jury’s findings.
The judgment underscores the importance of balancing workplace safety with religious accommodation in court decisions related to COVID-19 mandates.
⚖️ Justice served:
A federal judge just slapped down @SFBART attempt to overturn a $7.8M jury verdict for six workers fired over refusing the COVID shot on religious grounds. BART couldn't prove accommodating them would be too much of a burden. pic.twitter.com/T8ESrUZFt2— Amy Reichert (@amyforsandiego) January 2, 2025
The Bottom Line:
This ruling reaffirms the jury’s stance that BART did not prove undue hardship in offering non-vaccine accommodations to these workers.
It also highlights the weight that courts can place on religious freedom arguments when balanced against public health measures.
The verdict may encourage other employees who believe their religious rights were violated to pursue similar claims.
READ NEXT: Nine Million Workers Across 21 States to Get a Pay Raise on January 1
However, the precise outcome in each case will depend on the evidence and how courts interpret workplace policies.