The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit against the City of Pasadena regarding its COVID-19 safety policy. The court ruled that the city and its employees are protected from legal claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. This ruling affects city employees and sets a precedent for similar cases across the country.
Jonathan Schmidt, a forensic specialist in the Pasadena Police Department, filed the lawsuit after the city implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy in August 2021. The policy required employees to either get vaccinated or request an exemption. Schmidt received a religious exemption but was still required to undergo weekly COVID testing and wear a mask. He claimed these requirements created a hostile work environment by revealing his unvaccinated status. The case was filed under docket number 25-488.
The dispute began when Pasadena's human resources department reviewed exemption requests related to the vaccination policy. Schmidt's exemption triggered the testing and masking requirements, which he initially complied with but later contested. He was placed on unpaid administrative leave for refusing to comply with the testing and masking rules but eventually agreed to return to work under those conditions. The city rescinded the policy in March 2022.
Schmidt's legal battle involved multiple complaints, ultimately leading to the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) and Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC). The defendants, including the City of Pasadena and several city employees, moved to dismiss the case, claiming immunity under the PREP Act. The district court agreed, concluding that the PREP Act applied to the case and granted immunity to the defendants.
The Ninth Circuit panel, which included Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, John B. Owens, and Ana de Alba, affirmed the lower court's decision. Judge de Alba wrote the opinion, stating, "Defendants have immunity from all of Schmidt’s claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act." The court clarified that the PREP Act provides immunity from federal and state law claims related to the administration of medical countermeasures during a declared public health emergency.
The court found that the city and the individual defendants qualified as “covered persons” under the PREP Act because they were involved in administering COVID-19 testing and masking requirements. The court also determined that the COVID-19 testing and masks met the criteria for being considered “covered countermeasures.”
Schmidt's claims were deemed to be directly related to the administration of these countermeasures, satisfying the causation requirement for immunity under the PREP Act. The court emphasized that the PREP Act's immunity applies to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, or relating to the administration of a covered countermeasure.
This ruling has significant implications for city employees and local governments, as it reinforces the legal protections available under the PREP Act for actions taken during public health emergencies. It also sets a precedent for other cases involving similar claims against municipalities regarding COVID-19 safety measures.
Moving forward, the ruling may deter similar lawsuits against public entities implementing health and safety policies during emergencies. Schmidt's case illustrates the challenges individuals may face when contesting such policies, especially when immunity provisions are in place.
The court's decision can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is unclear if Schmidt will pursue this option. There are currently no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.