One major COVID-19-related lawsuit in the Department of Energy’s weapons complex ended this week when an appeals court ruled there was nothing much to resolve while another, on the other side of the country, is restarting.
A case involving DOE’s COVID-19 vaccination policy at the Hanford Site in Washington state is effectively over, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said Tuesday.
President Joe Biden (D) last month revoked two executive orders that gave rise to mandatory vaccination for most federal employees and contractors. As a result, “no live controversy remains between the parties because the challenged activity has evaporated or disappeared,” the appeals court panel said.
Because the COVID vaccination orders are now gone, the appeals court said arguments advanced by more than 300 Hanford employees under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, are settled.
Also, the Hanford plaintiffs claims under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act are precluded by sovereign immunity, the appeals court said.
Lawyers representing more than 300 employees at the Hanford Site, including many security guards, had argued the case is not moot and litigation should continue. The U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington has already dismissed the case, prompting the appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
This decision in the Hanford suit, drafted by Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Clifton, essentially closes the book on David Donovan and others versus Brian Vance. The case was brought by Donovan and the other DOE and contractor employees at Hanford against Vance, in his role as DOE’s Hanford Site manager, President Biden, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and the executives of various prime contractors.
Settlement falls through as Oak Ridge lab vax plaintiffs resume legal fight
Across the country in Tennessee, the five remaining plaintiffs who sued, and then seemingly settled, a lawsuit over the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s COVID-19 vaccination policy decided to stick with suing the lab.
“The parties wish to report to the Court that they were unable to resolve this case through mediation,” and will resume active litigation, lawyers for the lab employees and UT-Battelle, said in a June 7 status report filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee.
Attorneys representing the joint venture made up of the University of Tennessee and Battelle made the contractor’s “last, best and final” offer in May to end the legal battle that started nearly two years ago over workplace vaccination policy at the DOE-owned lab.
After being unable to reach a settlement following the latest extension from U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley, the attorneys met June 6 and agreed to a timetable for resuming the lawsuit.
Any motions for summary judgment, which would allow the court to rule for one side or another without a full trial, “shall be filed as soon as possible, but no later than March 1, 2024,” according to the joint filing.
A trial would take probably about 10 days, according to the filing.
Mediator Chadwick Hatmaker, an attorney in the Knoxville area, filed a one-page form with the court on June 7, saying mediation was terminated without settlement.
The remaining plaintiffs in the case are Jeffrey and Jessica Bilyeu, Stephanie Bruffey, Gregory Sheets and William Webb, according to the online court documents. A sixth plaintiff, Mark Cofer, dropped out of the litigation in May, according to online court documents.
The case dates back to October 2021 when the plaintiffs who had sought religious or medical exemptions from mandatory inoculation said the policy gave them little choice but to either take the COVID-19 shot or sacrifice their income from their national laboratory job.
Along the way, the employees returned to work after a restraining order in another federal court was issued.
