Lewis-Williams et al vs. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Case Background

On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff Raymond Locket and others filed a Job Discrimination lawsuit in the United States District Court, California Northern(Case number: 3:22cv6119). Judge  William Alsup presided over the case.

Cause

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) instituted a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on October 14, 2021, requiring all employees to become fully vaccinated as a condition of employment. BART established an exemption process allowing employees to request medical or religious accommodations. Of 204 total requests, 25 employees sought medical exemptions, with approximately one-third receiving accommodations. However, none of the 179 employees who requested religious exemptions received accommodations. BART used a standardized form titled “Employee Request for Religious Exemption (COVID-19 Vaccination)” to process these requests. Despite granting medical exemptions, BART systematically denied all religious accommodation requests between December 2021 and January 2022.

Injuries

The plaintiffs suffered job losses through termination, forced resignation, or early retirement due to BART’s blanket denial of religious accommodations. They lost immediate access to employment benefits, including health insurance and retirement contributions, and faced emotional distress from having to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and careers. Their professional advancement opportunities were permanently damaged. BART’s inconsistent handling of religious and medical accommodations created a discriminatory work environment, leading to psychological harm and financial instability.

Damages

The Plaintiffs asked for the following damages in the COVID vaccine religious bias  lawsuit:

  • Loss of regular wages and overtime compensation
  • Health insurance coverage termination, necessitating costly alternatives
  • Forfeiture of retirement benefits and pension contributions
  • Lost seniority and career advancement within BART
  • Expenses incurred in seeking alternative employment
  • Emotional distress from religious discrimination
  • Accumulated legal fees and costs in pursuing rights
  • Loss of accumulated sick leave and vacation time
  • Damage to professional reputations
  • Relocation expenses due to the need for new employment

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s):Raymond Locket | Ryan Rivera | Tonya Lewis-Williams | Susan Richardson |Bradford Mitchell| Phi Le | Gema Espinoza-Carr | Avin Curry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons |Rosalind Parker| Szu-Cheng Sun | Frank Kitzmiller | Tonya Lewis-Williams | Clifton Harrison | Christopher Monaco | Seamus Wilson
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Kevin Trent Snider| Jessica Robin Barsotti | Matthew Brown McReynolds | Milton Eugene Matchak
  • Defendant(s):San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
    • Counsel for Defendants: Victoria Rose Nuetzel| Dawson Patrick Honey | James M. Hanlon, Jr. | Sam N. Dawood

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Kevin Snider, who served as lead trial attorney, commented, “The rail employees chose to lose their livelihood rather than deny their faith. That in itself shows the sincerity and depth of their convictions. After nearly three years of struggle, these essential workers feel they were heard and understood by the jury and are overjoyed and relieved by the verdict.”

Claims

The Plaintiff asserted multiple claims against BART in a COVID vaccine religious bias lawsuit:

Title VII Violations

BART violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to provide reasonable religious accommodations. By approving medical accommodations and denying religious ones, BART engaged in religious discrimination and exhibited religious animus, in violation of federal law.

First Amendment Violations

BART’s blanket denial of religious accommodations violated the Free Exercise Clause by substantially burdening employees’ religious practices without compelling justification. The transit authority demonstrated hostility toward religion by categorically rejecting religious accommodations while approving medical ones.

FEHA Violations

BART violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by failing to engage in good-faith interactive processes regarding religious accommodations. The systematic denial of religious accommodation requests constituted religious discrimination under state law.

Equal Protection Violations

The inconsistent treatment of medical and religious exemptions violated constitutional equal protection requirements. BART created arbitrary and discriminatory distinctions between secular and religious reasons for vaccine exemptions.

ADA Violations

BART’s process violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to assess religious accommodation requests with the same criteria as medical ones. The agency did not demonstrate that accommodating religious requests would cause undue hardship.

This COVID vaccine religious bias lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees for systematic violations of religious and employment protections under federal and state law.

Defense

BART denied any wrongdoing in its handling of COVID-19 vaccination religious exemptions. The agency stated it granted exemptions to 70 of the 179 employees who requested them, including the named plaintiffs, but maintained it could not reasonably accommodate any of them. BART evaluated each exemption request individually and provided accommodations where feasible, including for eight employees with medical exemptions. The agency argued that all employment decisions were made in good faith, based on non-discriminatory standards and legitimate business necessity.

BART raised several affirmative defenses. It claimed that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not comply with statutory prerequisites. The agency asserted that certain claims were barred by statutes of limitations and that it held immunity under specific California Civil Code and Government Code sections. BART argued that plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages and that its decisions were based on bona fide job requirements, not discrimination or retaliation. BART also denied that the case met the requirements for class action treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Jury Verdict

On October 23, 2024, the jury found against the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in favor of six plaintiffs. The jury awarded Raymond Lockett $1,507,570.00, the largest individual award. Tonya Lewis-Williams received $1,371,657.00, Szu-Cheng Sun $1,325,140.00, Rosalind Parker $1,279,875.00, Ryan Rivera $1,176,367.00, and Bradford Mitchell $1,163,971.00. The total damages awarded against BART amounted to $7,824,580.00 across all six plaintiffs in a COVID vaccine religious bias lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request

Press Release:

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/bart-to-pay-millions-for-firing-employees-who-refused-covid-vaccine/