United Airlines Seeks Supreme Court Review in COVID Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit

Airline Appeals Class Action Certification

United Airlines has escalated a significant legal challenge to the US Supreme Court. The carrier seeks review of a class action lawsuit concerning its 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate. This action involves around 1,000 former employees. These individuals were placed on unpaid leave. This occurred after they received religious exemptions from the airline's vaccination policy.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier upheld the class certification. This decision, made in March this year, allowed the collective lawsuit to proceed. United's appeal to the highest court aims to reverse this ruling. The airline argues the appeals court's approach broadens the scope for class actions significantly. This case holds implications for employment law and corporate policy regarding health mandates.

Background to the Mandate and Exemptions

United Airlines implemented its vaccine mandate in August 2021. This policy required all US employees to be vaccinated. The airline offered exemptions for medical or religious reasons. Of 5,885 accommodation requests, United approved 4,070. Customer-facing employees with approved religious exemptions faced unpaid leave.

This policy began in October 2021 and continued until March 2022. Non-customer facing staff, like mechanics, sometimes continued working under masking and testing rules. Some customer service roles permitted remote work. However, pilots and flight attendants were among the 2,200 employees placed on unpaid leave. United maintained the mandate protected employees and passengers.

Employees argued indefinite unpaid leave was not a genuine accommodation. They believed it made exercising their rights financially prohibitive.

Appeals Court Upholds Class Status

The class action lawsuit originated in September 2021 with six employees. A class of 1,000 religious accommodation recipients was certified in 2022. These were individuals placed on unpaid leave. Medical accommodation recipients were excluded. In March this year, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld this certification.

The court determined that common questions existed for the group. These included whether unpaid leave constituted a reasonable religious accommodation. It also considered if alternatives like masking, testing, or reassignment were viable. Furthermore, the court assessed if such alternatives would impose substantial hardship on United.

The court noted United itself had reviewed and approved each religious request. It then imposed the same unpaid leave policy. This created a common situation for the affected employees. Judge Don Willett concurred with upholding the class. However, he questioned treating religious sincerity as a common issue. He suggested individual testimony might be needed for sincerity disputes.

United's Arguments and Broader Implications

United's petition to the Supreme Court emphasises the need for individual assessment. The airline argues that a jury must examine hundreds of individual applications and employee beliefs. It highlights variations in potential alternate jobs. These differed by airport, qualifications, and compensation levels.

The feasibility of masking and testing also depended on individual job duties and flight schedules. United contends that calculating back pay requires individual evaluation.

The airline asserts that resolving hundreds of sincerity disputes would turn the class action into many "mini-trials." This, United argues, weakens the Supreme Court's requirement for classwide proceedings to generate common answers. The outcome of this case could significantly influence future class actions. This includes employment discrimination, fraud, and mass tort claims. The Supreme Court's decision will shape the landscape of employment law within the aviation sector and beyond.