A federal district judge in Tennessee has refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the Department of Energy’s management contractor for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in a case brought by a small group of plaintiffs refusing to comply with a vaccine mandate.
While contractor UT-Battelle’s treatment of employees seeking vaccine exemptions could have been better, the situation does not rise to “irreparable harm” and an injunction is not warranted, U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley Jr. said in a decision issued late Friday.
“It is difficult to imagine that other accommodations aside from unpaid leave were not available for at least some individuals,” according to the decision. “But given the absence of irreparable harm, the Court need not examine whether such accommodations were reasonable.” The ruling came after two days of testimony earlier in the week in a hearing in U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that contractor UT-Battelle was forcing them to choose between their religious beliefs and their livelihood.
“However, Plaintiffs conflate the alleged irreparable harm arising from UT-Battelle’s challenged accommodation with the personal difficulty of choosing whether to decline the vaccine requirement,” Atchley wrote. “Plaintiffs are not being forced to take the vaccine, thus depriving them of the right to exercise their religious beliefs, and the defendant has not terminated their positions. In fact, Defendant has expressed a desire and intention to bring Plaintiffs back to work—even if their position has been filled.”
The federal judge goes on to say the contract consistently said the unpaid leave state will be reconsidered in light of COVID-19 community transmission statistics 60 days from the date of leave. Also, while the plaintiffs might not like the accommodation they receive, “all those who espoused a remotely religious rationale were given an accommodation,” according to the ruling.
Plaintiffs also argued they will face irreparable harm if their security clearances are revoked, namely through a negative impact on future employment possibilities. “But the record shows that Plaintiffs with security clearances will retain them for 90 days” and what happens before then is speculative, the judge held.
In addition, the judge pointed to a federal appeals court ruling saying that temporary job loss alone is not enough to establish “irreparable harm,” which is a key factor in whether to grant an injunction.
