He got the religious exemption - then fought what came with it
A Pasadena forensic specialist fought his employer's COVID-19 mask and testing rules all the way to the Ninth Circuit. He lost.
The US Court of Appeals on October 5 affirmed the dismissal of the worker's lawsuit against the City of Pasadena and several city employees, holding all defendants immune under the federal PREP Act.
In August 2021, the city told its workforce to get vaccinated by September 17 or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Exempt employees had to test weekly and mask up in shared spaces. The city's HR department reviewed the requests.
The worker got his religious exemption. But he refused to test or wear a mask, so the city put him on unpaid leave. He eventually complied and returned in November 2021.
That did not settle things.
He alleged the masking and testing outed his unvaccinated status and created a hostile work environment. He sued in November 2021 and filed five versions of his complaint - the third alone contained 21 federal and state claims. He complied until the city dropped the policy in March 2022.
The Ninth Circuit found all three requirements for PREP Act immunity were met. The Act, passed in 2005, shields those who administer medical countermeasures during declared public health emergencies. The city qualified as a "program planner." The individual defendants qualified as covered persons - something the worker's own complaint conceded. And both COVID tests and masks fell within the statute's definition of covered countermeasures, each backed by FDA emergency use authorizations.
The panel also corrected the district court on causation. The lower court had applied PREP Act immunity to only two claims, reasoning the rest involved reputational harms. The Ninth Circuit said that was the wrong lens - what matters is the type of injury alleged, not the category of legal claim. Physical, emotional, and property damage from the policy was enough.
His other arguments went nowhere. Twenty exhibits supporting his reconsideration motion were all available before the original dismissal. A bid to recuse the district judge over mutual fund investments failed - federal law says fund ownership is not a disqualifying interest unless the judge manages the fund. A sanctions motion was also denied.
For HR teams still fielding post-pandemic workplace claims, the takeaway is direct: PREP Act immunity covers not just tort claims but constitutional and civil rights actions too, so long as the measures involved covered countermeasures during the declaration period.
