OAKLAND, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – Kaiser Permanente workers who sued over the company’s COVID vaccine mandate have no chance at success, a federal judge ruled.
On Nov. 18, Judge Vince Chhabria in California’s Northern District denied their motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
“The plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood (or even a possibility) of success on their arguments under the United States Constitution because Kaiser is not a state actor,” he wrote. “The source of harm that the plaintiffs complain of is a decision by a private employer to impose conditions on employment.”
Chhabria added that its policy is justified because it promotes the health and safety of the workforce. The health care group noted in its argument that its mandate protects patients all over the country too.
“(T)his vaccination mandate is not solely about the health of individual employees, but the health of people with whom employees interact (which, in this case, includes medical patients, although the absence of patients would not make a material difference),” Chhabria wrote.
“Against the backdrop of these health concerns, the plaintiffs have made a weak showing in support of their contention that Kaiser’s vaccination policy unreasonably infringes their privacy rights. The plaintiffs have submitted declarations contesting the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (as well as asserting that the vaccines are not ‘vaccines’ at all), but it appears unlikely that much of this testimony would stand up under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
KP announced its mandate on Aug. 2 and has promised to fire employees who aren’t vaccinated by the end of December.
Plaintiffs allege that a vaccination mandate cannot be supported when more than 99.8% of those infected with COVID-19 survive and obtain a natural immunity that is superior to the vaccine-induced immunity.
The suit also says KP “deliberately caused” the mandates for health care workers subsequently imposed by the State of California and the federal government.
“This flawed ‘state actor’ theory is fatal to the Section 1983 claims. Courts have firmly rejected arguments that private entities are ‘state actors’ when they require COVID-19 vaccines for their employees,” the company’s lawyers argued.
“Instead, Plaintiffs rely on bizarre, conspiratorial allegations that Kaiser Permanente is a state actor because it ‘caused’ federal and state officials, all the way up to the President, to impose vaccine mandates.
“But the Complaint offers no plausible basis for these allegations, identifying only routine interactions between Kaiser Permanente and officials regarding salutary efforts to combat the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020.”