Several workers have been awarded over $1 million each in damages by a California court after they were fired for refusing to take Covid “vaccines.”
The jury ruled that rail transit officials in California’s Bay Area must pay more than $7 million to six former workers who were fired for failing to comply with a “vaccine” mandate.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the group of San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transit (BART) workers.
The workers had refused to get the vaccine for religious purposes.
BART was ordered to pay the group more than $7.8 million.
The federal jury awarded each individual between $1.2 million and $1.5 million.
The Pacific Justice Institute, which represented the transit workers in the trial, revealed the ruling in a statement.
The institute, a law firm representing the six former employees since 2022, said the eight-person jury deliberated for two days last week before returning the verdict.
Earlier this month, the federal jury also determined that BART had failed to prove that it suffered an undue hardship by denying accommodations to the ex-employees in the case.
The court further found that the six employees met the burden of showing that there was a conflict between their religious beliefs and the BART “vaccine” mandate.
The mandate was implemented in 2021.
According to the law firm, the jury also agreed with the figures that the plaintiffs had provided for lost wages that they had suffered after losing their jobs.
The jury then added $1 million each to those figures.
The law firm described the verdict as a “legal earthquake.”
“The rail employees chose to lose their livelihood rather than deny their faith.
In a statement, lead trial attorney Kevin Snider, the Pacific Justice Institute’s chief counsel, said:
“That in itself shows the sincerity and depth of their convictions.
“After nearly three years of struggle, these essential workers feel they were heard and understood by the jury and are overjoyed and relieved by the verdict.”
The law firm stated:
“During the trial, jurors heard compelling testimony from dedicated employees.
“One of the plaintiffs had worked for more than 30 years for BART, with a stretch of 10 years perfect attendance, before being unceremoniously dismissed.
“Another had been out on workers comp for months, with no scheduled return date, when she was fired.”
Lawyers for BART argued that multiple employees who had conflicts with receiving the vaccine had secular—rather than religious—reasons.
However, the Pacific Justice Institute said the jury disagreed with those arguments.
The vaccine mandate was approved by BART’s board of directors in October 2021.
It stipulated that all employees must get the Covid “vaccine.”
It allowed some employees to be exempt from the vaccine, including for religious reasons.
A year later, BART employees filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the operator of denying religious accommodations that violated state law.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup presided over the lawsuit against BART.
Alsup ruled that the operator’s policies did not violate the employees’ right to religious freedom, according to an order he issued in March.
A separate order issued by Alsup in January found that BART received 188 requests for a religious exemption and accommodation.
Of that figure, 40 chose not to complete the process.
They were either terminated from employment or ultimately got the vaccine.
In his order, the judge further stated:
“Plaintiffs’ putative class fails because its members have little in common beyond their request for religious accommodation.
“They do not share a common religious objection.
“They do not share a vocation or a set of contractual rights.
“They do not present a similar set of potential accommodations and associated burdens.
“They do not present similar health and exposure concerns.
“Potential accommodations do not impact the same pool of coworkers.
“Those coworkers do not have the same bargained-for rights.”
The rail operator’s spokesman, James Allison, told local news outlet SFGate that it had “no comment” on the verdict.
