*
Eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority (the “Authority”) have lost their latest attempt to block the company’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction, concluding that the employees were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment religious freedom claims.
The case marks the second time these employees have appealed the denial of injunctive relief concerning the Authority’s mandate, which required employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption.
The Authority’s Policy and Exemption Process
The Authority rolled out its COVID-19 Vaccination Verification Policy in January 2022, aiming “to prevent viral infection and transmission.” The policy demanded employees obtain full vaccination status within six weeks, unless they had a valid exemption.
Exemptions were permitted for two reasons: a documented medical contraindication or a “sincerely held religious belief,” provided that in either case, the employee could still perform their essential job functions without creating an undue burden for the Authority. Religious exemption requests were to be reviewed on a “case-by-case basis” by the Human Resources Director, Janice Kennefick, in consultation with legal and operations staff.
Thirteen employees initially sought religious exemptions. Kennefick ultimately denied eleven of these requests, including those from the current appellants. The denial letters cited the “direct threat” an unvaccinated status would pose to coworkers and customers, especially given that many jobs required close interaction in enclosed spaces aboard the Authority’s vessels. Employees who refused vaccination faced discipline, including termination.
Notably, one employee received a temporary medical exemption for three months based on a recent COVID-19 infection, aligning with CDC guidance at the time. This employee was later denied a permanent religious exemption and was eventually terminated after the medical accommodation expired and he refused vaccination. Four employees eventually complied with the mandate and remained employed, though they are still part of the appeal seeking to block any future requirement for booster shots.
The Legal Battle Over Scrutiny Level
The employees sued in state court, alleging violations of religious freedom under both the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, alongside claims under state anti-discrimination law and due process. After removal to federal court, the district court denied preliminary relief.
In the first appeal, the First Circuit vacated the denial regarding the First Amendment claim, instructing the lower court to reassess the significance of the one medical exemption granted and determine the correct level of constitutional scrutiny to apply.
On remand, the district court again denied the injunction. It determined that the policy was “generally applicable” and therefore subject only to rational basis review—the lowest level of scrutiny. The court reasoned that the single, temporary medical exemption granted was not comparable to the numerous, permanent religious exemption requests, meaning the policy treated all secular conduct similarly.
Under rational basis review, the policy easily passed, being rationally related to the legitimate government interest of limiting COVID-19 spread and protecting health and safety. The district court further noted that even if the higher strict scrutiny standard applied, the policy would likely survive because the Authority had a compelling justification and the policy was narrowly tailored.
The First Circuit’s Affirmation: Waiver and Comparability
The appellate panel, led by Circuit Judge Howard, reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The court focused heavily on the likelihood of success on the merits, which hinges on the applicable level of scrutiny for the Free Exercise claim.
The central legal question was whether the Authority’s individualized review process for religious exemptions made the policy *not* generally applicable, thus triggering strict scrutiny.
The Court addressed two arguments raised by the employees to claim the policy was not generally applicable:
1. Individualized Exemptions: The employees argued that allowing Director Kennefick “sole discretion” to review religious requests case-by-case meant the policy invited individualized assessments, failing the general applicability test established by the Supreme Court. However, the First Circuit ruled this argument was waived. It had not been “squarely and timely raised” in the initial motions or the renewed motion, appearing only in a reply brief. The court found the prior, vague references insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.
2. Unequal Treatment of Secular vs. Religious Conduct: The employees argued the policy prohibited religious conduct (refusing vaccination) while permitting secular conduct that undermined the same interests. This comparison centered on the one medical exemption versus the religious requests.
In evaluating this, the Court had to define the Authority’s asserted interest and compare the risks posed by the two types of exemptions. The Court accepted the Authority’s consistent stance throughout the litigation: the interest was broadly to “prevent viral infection and transmission in order to protect the health and safety of the Authority’s employees and customers.”
Crucially, the First Circuit found the medical and religious exemptions were not comparable under the Free Exercise Clause standards set by Supreme Court precedent (like *Tandon v. Newsom*). The key distinction was that the medical exemption *furthered* the Authority’s core health and safety interest by protecting employees who medically could not take the vaccine. Conversely, granting a religious accommodation did not advance the health and safety aims.
Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the *aggregate* risks differed significantly. The Authority received thirteen requests for permanent religious exemptions but only one request for a temporary (three-month) medical exemption. Given the close quarters on the Authority’s vessels, the court found it reasonable to treat a large number of permanent religious exemptions as posing a significantly greater risk than a single, time-limited medical one.
Conclusion on Merits and Injunction
Since the policy was deemed both religiously neutral and generally applicable, the required standard of review remained rational basis. The Authority’s goal of protecting public health was a legitimate interest, and requiring vaccination while allowing medically necessary exemptions was rationally related to that goal. The court dismissed the argument that the policy was irrational because vaccines were not 100% effective against breakthrough infections, noting that preventing severe illness and hospitalization alone satisfied the rational basis test.
Because the employees failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the renewed request for a preliminary injunction.