A federal judge has rejected an attempt by BART to toss out a $7.8 million jury verdict in favor of six workers who were fired by the transit district when it refused to honor their requests for religious exemptions from BART's Covid vaccine mandate.
On Dec. 30, U.S. District Judge William Alsup denied motions from the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to undo the verdict and secure a new trial, as BART seeks to escape the jury's orders to pay at least $1.1 million to each of the six fired workers for religious discrimination.
The verdict was rendered in October following a trial that centered on the question of whether BART had lived up to its obligations under the law to attempt to accommodate the workers' religious convictions before moving to terminate their employment.
The successful plaintiffs included Raymond Lockett, Ryan Rivera, Tonya Lewis-Williams, Bradford Mitchell, Rosalind Parker and Szu-Cheng "S.C." Sun.
The verdict generated headlines nationally, as the plaintiffs' lawyers with the Pacific Justice Institute, of Sacramento, called the jury's determination a "stunning blow" that legally was "seismic - a 7.8 San Francisco legal earthquake."
The six workers filed suit against BART in October 2022, accusing the transit agency of religious employment discrimination for refusing workers' request for accommodation in lieu of receiving a Covid shot, as mandated by the agency.
BART imposed its Covid shot mandate on Oct. 14, 2021, requiring all of its agency employees to receive Covid shots or risk losing their jobs.
According to the lawsuit, 179 employees ultimately requested religious exemptions or accommodations under federal and state anti-religious discrimination laws. According to the complaint, 70 BART employees received their exemptions.
However, BART allegedly denied 109 exemption requests, maintaining the mandate even after medical evidence revealed the Covid shots did not prevent infection or transmission of the Covid virus.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiff workers said they refused to take the Covid shot because they believed the injections were formulated from human fetal cell lines, which may have been obtained from aborted fetuses. As staunch believers in the sanctity of human life as informed by their Christian faith, the workers said they could not in good conscience undergo medical procedures involving formulas obtained through abortions.
The former BART workers filed suit after the agency fired them for refusing to comply with the vaccination order.
BART contested the lawsuit for two years, ultimately taking the case to trial in mid-October 2024.
The jurors ultimately determined BART could not prove it would suffer an "undue hardship" by allowing the workers to remain unvaccinated or by accommodating their religous beliefs.
Following the verdict, BART's lawyers filed two post-trial motions with the court, seeking to either overturn the verdict or secure a new trial.
In one motion, BART asserted the jury verdict should not be allowed to stand because the verdict allegedly ran against the evidence. BART asserted it should not have been expected to accommodate the workers' religious beliefs because the Covid shot mandate was based on guidance from public health officials, who had indicated only the Covid vaccine could actually protect workers and the public against the virus.
They argued no amount of masking, testing or other preventive measures would suffice, other than receiving the Covid shot.
They argued their evidence had been "unrebutted" by the plaintiffs.
However, the judge shot down that argument.
"Since BART was the only side to present experts (on this topic), BART’s ... motion presupposes that the jury was obligated to accept their opinions. That is incorrect. That is not how jury trials work," Judge Alsup wrote.
He said the jury was entitled to discount BART's "expert" testimony as they wished, saying jurors were free to conclude the witnesses presented by BART had been "bought and paid for" and were "merely parroting the 'company line.'"
Further, Alsup noted BART had never presented any evidence demonstrating BART's board of directors had actually relied on any scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines when instituting its mandate and denying religious exemption requests.
"... We saw no decision memorandum presented to the board. We saw no resolution adopted by the board reciting any evidence. We heard no testimony from anyone who presented scientific evidence to the BART board or who made the decision," Alsup wrote.
"Instead, BART’s trial counsel elected to present after-the-fact litigation experts. From this, BART counsel argued that the jury should infer that the board had acted in reliance upon the same scientific themes expressed at trial by the two experts.
"But this inference was never actually proven, and we still do not know what evidence the board actually had before adopting the vaccine requirement."
The judge also rejected BART's attempt to secure a new trial.
BART had argued the judge had made legal errors that resulted in the jury receiving faulty instructions to guide their deliberations and evaluation of the evidence presented at trial.
The judge conceded two such errors, but said they were not critical to the ultimate outcome.
"The trial would have been about as close to perfect as civil trials ever get save for two imperfections..." the judge said.
"The judge regrets these flaws but they, even in combination, did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The trial was still fair enough to stand."
As of Jan. 9, BART had not yet indicated if it would appeal.