Six former employees of San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) have been awarded $7.8 million in damages after a jury ruled that the agency discriminated against them by denying religious exemptions to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Each employee is set to receive $1.3 million in compensation for lost wages and emotional distress after they were dismissed for refusing vaccination due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
The landmark decision comes nearly three years after BART introduced a COVID-19 vaccine policy in October 2021, requiring all employees to be vaccinated or face termination. The transit agency, which connects San Francisco with the surrounding Bay Area communities, had hoped the policy would safeguard the health of its workforce and riders. However, employees who opposed the vaccination on religious grounds said they were left without options and ultimately lost their jobs.
Faith vs. Livelihood
Among those affected was Tonia Lewis-Williams, who had been with BART for 16 years. She expressed the personal conflict she faced between maintaining her faith and her career. “I found out some other co-workers were in the same situation that I was in, and we just knew that wasn’t right,” Lewis-Williams said, reflecting on the difficult decision she and her colleagues had to make. She, like the other plaintiffs, said her Christian faith prohibited her from taking the vaccine, citing beliefs about bodily autonomy and concerns over the vaccine’s development.
During the trial, the employees argued that BART failed to demonstrate any “undue hardship” that would have prevented them from accommodating their requests for religious exemptions. The employees’ legal team, led by attorneys from the nonprofit Pacific Justice Institute, highlighted that there were feasible alternatives, such as placing employees on temporary leave until the mandate was lifted in September of the previous year.
Jury’s Decision and Impact
The federal jury agreed with the employees, ruling that BART’s refusal to accommodate religious beliefs constituted discrimination under employment laws. Although U.S. District Judge William Alsup had previously determined that BART’s vaccine mandate did not inherently discriminate against religious beliefs, he permitted the plaintiffs to argue that the agency’s lack of flexibility in providing exemptions violated federal civil rights laws. The jury ultimately sided with the former employees, recognizing the sincerity of their beliefs and the hardship they endured.
Kevin Snider, Chief Counsel for Pacific Justice Institute, praised the decision, describing it as a victory for religious freedom in the workplace. “The rail employees chose to lose their livelihood rather than deny their faith,” he stated. “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.”
Broader Implications and Reactions
The case’s outcome has sparked discussions on the balance between public health measures and religious freedom in employment. The plaintiffs hope that their experience can serve as a message for other workplaces facing similar issues. “My story is one of many,” Lewis-Williams commented. “This is a small victory for everyone terminated for religious or medical reasons.”
The decision underscores the shifting landscape of vaccine mandates and religious accommodations. BART’s case follows other high-profile rulings where the courts have sided with individuals seeking religious exemptions. The current Supreme Court has also shown openness to such cases, including a 2022 decision that overturned California’s restrictions on indoor worship during the pandemic, citing religious discrimination.
Despite the jury’s ruling, BART officials have remained largely silent on the decision, with spokesperson James Allison declining to comment on the outcome. The agency faces a significant financial payout and potential calls for policy revisions in light of the ruling.
A Path Forward
As the case wraps up, Lewis-Williams and her fellow plaintiffs have expressed a sense of relief and justice. Although the $7.8 million compensation cannot reverse their terminations, they hope the verdict will encourage organizations to respect religious diversity and provide reasonable accommodations where possible.
Lewis-Williams, who said she loved her job at BART, hopes to one day return. “For these employees, it was important that a jury heard and understood them,” said Snider. “This verdict brings closure to a difficult chapter in their lives.”
The BART case adds to a series of legal rulings highlighting the challenges and complexities surrounding vaccine mandates, religious rights, and workplace policies as the nation continues to navigate the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.