In a dramatic legal move, an employee has filed a lawsuit against his former employer, alleging violations of religious freedom and wrongful termination. On March 3, 2025, David Crenshaw Jr. filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against the City and County of San Francisco. The lawsuit claims that Crenshaw was wrongfully terminated for refusing to comply with a Covid-19 vaccination mandate due to his religious beliefs.
David Crenshaw Jr., who had been employed by the City and County of San Francisco since September 2005, asserts that his dismissal was in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as well as both the U.S. and California Constitutions. According to the complaint, Crenshaw applied for a religious exemption from the Covid-19 vaccine requirement on August 20, 2021. However, his request was denied without any alternative accommodations being offered or discussed. Subsequently, on November 1, 2021, it was recommended that he be dismissed due to his vaccination status, leading to his official separation from employment on April 1, 2022.
Crenshaw's legal action outlines three main causes: failure to provide reasonable religious accommodations under FEHA; violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and violation of Article 1, Section 4 of the California Constitution. "The Defendants’ vaccination policy substantially burdened Plaintiff's religious exercise by punishing him for seeking religious exemption," states the complaint. It further argues that this policy was not generally applicable because it allowed for individualized exemptions but failed to accommodate Crenshaw’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief from the court. These include nominal damages for civil rights violations; compensatory damages for past and future wage loss as well as emotional distress; declaratory judgments stating that the vaccination policy violates constitutional rights and FEHA; equitable relief such as full reinstatement with back pay; statutory attorneys' fees; and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.
Representing David Crenshaw Jr. is attorney Arkady Itkin from the Law Office of A. Itkin based in San Francisco. The case has been assigned Case ID CGC-25-622899 at the Superior Court of California in San Francisco.