Federal Court Dismisses COVID Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit by Los Angeles Employees

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by more than 140 current and former Los Angeles city employees challenging the City’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The case, McMahon v. City of Los Angeles, was decided by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs, who included city firefighters and other employees, brought seven causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violations of their constitutional rights arising from the City’s 2021 ordinance requiring all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or obtain a medical or religious exemption.

The plaintiffs claimed the City forced them to take “investigational” or “emergency use authorization” vaccines, and that doing so violated their rights to bodily autonomy, due process, equal protection, and privacy. They further alleged that the City concealed the “investigational” status of the vaccines and penalized those who refused vaccination.

Judge Aenlle-Rocha granted the City’s motion to dismiss all claims against the City and Mayor Karen Bass. The court held that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are subject to rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny and found the City’s ordinance was rationally related to a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

Citing prior decisions, including Kheriaty v. Regents of the University of California, the court ruled that vaccine mandates do not violate substantive or procedural due process or the Equal Protection Clause.

The court devoted a portion of its decision to analyzing the plaintiffs’ claim that the mandate violated their right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that by requiring disclosure of vaccination status and related health information, the City intruded on their “fundamental liberty interest in the right of privacy from unwanted, unwarranted, and unjustified government intrusion.”

Judge Aenlle-Rocha applied the Ninth Circuit’s five-factor balancing test for informational privacy, drawn from A.C. v. Cortez, 34 F.4th 783 (9th Cir. 2022). Under that framework, courts weigh:

1. the type of information requested,
2. the potential for harm from nonconsensual disclosure,
3. the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure,
4. the degree of need for access, and
5. whether there is a statutory or public policy interest justifying access.

The court noted that this right is not absolute and may be outweighed by a proper governmental interest. Applying the Cortez factors, the judge concluded that vaccination status does not qualify as “inherently sensitive or intimate” information whose disclosure would cause injury, embarrassment, or stigma. The decision cited Schmidt v. City of Pasadena and Martinez v. Eastside Fire & Rescue, both holding that disclosure of vaccination status does not amount to a constitutional violation.

The court also observed that the limited disclosure required under the Los Angeles ordinance served an essential public health purpose—ensuring compliance with the vaccination requirement—and was therefore justified by a legitimate government interest.

Accordingly, the court found no violation of informational privacy rights and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action.

The decision dismisses all claims without leave to amend. Here is a copy of the decision.