Court Affirms $7.8 Million Ruling for Transit Workers Terminated Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Refusal

A federal judge in California has dismissed Bay Area Rapid Transit’s (BART) attempt to overturn a jury ruling that awarded $7.8 million to six former employees dismissed for refusing to comply with the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate due to religious beliefs.

Judge Alsup denied BART’s motions for a new trial and the overturning of the verdict, indicating that the agency did not prove that accommodating the employees’ religious beliefs would impose undue hardship.

“In straightforward terms, based on the instructions provided and the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could have determined that BART did not meet its burden of establishing its affirmative defense,” Alsup noted, acknowledging that BART had the responsibility to prove that alternative accommodations, such as masking, testing, or remote work, would create an undue challenge for the agency.

BART’s defense heavily relied on expert witness testimony that argued no alternatives to vaccination were as effective against COVID-19, while the judge remarked that the agency claimed to have produced “‘unrebutted’ scientific evidence” substantiating this viewpoint. However, Alsup pointed out that the jury had the prerogative to assess the credibility of the experts, especially in light of their financial connections to BART.

“Considering the substantial payments made to the experts by BART, our jury was justified in concluding that they were ‘bought and paid for,’ merely reiterating the ‘company line,’ and lacked credibility due to their biases, common sense, and other evidence,” the judge stated. “An expert witness is no different from any other witness; thus, it is the jury’s role to determine the weight their testimony carries.”

Related Stories

Judge Alsup also pointed out inconsistencies in BART’s evidence. Notably, he referred to a BART supervisor’s acknowledgement during cross-examination that pre-vaccine measures like masking and social distancing were effective, which contradicted the testimony from BART’s experts. Furthermore, BART did not provide clear documentation supporting the rationale behind its vaccine mandate.

“Interestingly, BART did not present any evidence regarding the information actually considered by the BART board when it established its mandatory vaccine requirement,” the judge emphasized. “No decision memorandum was submitted to the board. No resolution stating any evidence was adopted by the board. No testimony was heard from anyone who offered scientific evidence to the BART board or made the decision.”

Although Judge Alsup dismissed BART’s attempts to overturn the jury’s decision and request a new trial, he acknowledged minor issues within the trial process. One such issue was a lack of clarity in the jury instructions that did not explicitly eliminate unpaid leave as a potential lawful accommodation. However, he stated that BART had sufficient opportunity to address this during the trial but did not do so.

Another noted problem was a violation of a pretrial order by the plaintiffs’ counsel when mention was made of other employees who were denied religious exemptions. Alsup characterized this violation as intentional but pointed out that it occurred during the trial’s second phase, after the jury had ruled on BART’s undue hardship defense. He concluded that the misconduct did not affect the overall verdict.

“The judge acknowledges these shortcomings, but they did not combine to result in a miscarriage of justice,” Alsup stated. “The trial remained fair enough to uphold.”

Alsup’s ruling reaffirms the jury’s conclusion that BART failed to demonstrate it would face undue hardship by allowing vaccine exemptions and that the six former employees proved the existence of a conflict between their religious beliefs and the vaccine mandate. Consequently, the jury’s award of $7,825,859 in damages to the six former employees continues to stand.

BART spokesman James Allison informed The Epoch Times via email that the agency had no comment regarding the verdict.