Sambrano v. United Airlines: Split 5th Circuit panel denies injunction to religious objectors to vaccine

In  Sambrano v. United Airlines a divided three judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against the airline lodged by employees claiming religious objection. the workers acted under 42 USC 2000(e) the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The objectors claimed that the company (which has achieved a 99% vaccination rate) failed to make "reasonable accommodation" of their religious beliefs.  United, they argue, has no right to inquire regarding the nature of their religious beliefs.

Judge James Ho, a former Gibson Dunn litigator and Texas Solicitor General, dissented:

...Whether the interference with religious conviction comes from the public or private sector, a person of faith suffers “a harm that cannot be adequately compensated monetarily.” Id. It is difficult to imagine how a crisis of conscience, whether instigated by government or industry, could be remedied by an award of monetary damages. Take this case: The person who acquiesces to United’s mandate despite his faith doesn’t lose any pay. But he will have to wrestle with self doubt—questioning whether he has lived up to the calling of his faith.

Today the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a refusal to grant religious accommodation to Catholic doctors and nurses who refused to be vaccinated contrary to an order by the Governor of New York.  Neil Gorsuch dissented, joined by Samuel Alito.  Clarence Thomas would have granted cert.