Reported / Citable
Background
Pasadena employee Jonathan Schmidt received a religious exemption from the city’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement but had to test weekly and wear a mask in shared spaces. He alleged that those measures exposed his vaccination status, created a hostile environment, and violated federal rights.
The district court dismissed his section 1983 suit and denied reconsideration. Schmidt appealed the application of immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the city and individual officials were protected by PREP Act immunity. During the declared public-health emergency, the testing and masking requirements related to the administration and use of covered countermeasures within the statutory program.
The panel rejected attempts to recast the alleged harms as outside the immunity provision. Because immunity disposed of the claims, Schmidt could not proceed against either the municipality or the named employees, and reconsideration was properly denied.
Key Takeaways
- PREP Act immunity can reach workplace rules connected to covered public-health countermeasures.
- The legal characterization of a claim does not avoid immunity when the alleged injury is causally related to the covered program.
- Public entities and participating officials may both receive protection.
- Employers should preserve the emergency declarations and policy materials supporting a countermeasure program.
Why It Matters
For California public employers, the published opinion offers substantial protection for pandemic-era policies, though the result turns on the PREP Act’s detailed requirements and the relevant declaration. Employee-side counsel should analyze causation and statutory exceptions before pleading around immunity.