A federal court on Thursday ruled in favor of two former St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) employees, awarding them a combined $180,000 in damages after they were fired for refusing to comply with the district’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The ruling was part of a lawsuit filed by 43 employees against SLPS, alleging the district unlawfully denied religious or medical exemptions, placed employees on unpaid leave, or terminated them for not receiving the vaccine. According to the lawsuit, the district violated employees’ rights by denying exemptions without fair consideration and punishing those who refused vaccination.
Six other employees have reached settlements with the district. According to St. Louis Today, 35 other employees are still engaged in mediation discussions with SLPS. If they’re unable to reach agreements with the district, a jury trial will follow.
In the fall of 2021, the St. Louis Board of Education adopted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate requiring all SLPS staff members to be vaccinated unless they had a valid medical or religious exemption. According to Fox 2 St. Louis, the school’s employees were required to get Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine as it was the only fully licensed vaccine available.
The two employees awarded damages in this ruling were each granted $90,000, with the court determining they faced wrongful termination or suspension due to the policy. The broader case remains ongoing as additional plaintiffs seek justice for alleged unlawful employment practices.
SLPS has not publicly commented on the ruling, and it remains unclear whether the district will appeal the decision. The broader lawsuit continues to unfold, with other plaintiffs awaiting further legal proceedings.
According to court documents, one of the plaintiffs was a long-time educator who had requested a religious exemption but was denied without any justification. Another plaintiff, who had a documented medical condition that prevented vaccination, was also denied an exemption and was subsequently terminated. Attorneys representing the employees argue that SLPS engaged in discrimination and retaliation against those who refused to comply.
The case has drawn national attention as similar legal battles over vaccine mandates continue to emerge across the country. Critics of the SLPS mandate argue that it violated individual rights and disproportionately affected employees who held religious or medical objections to the COVID-19 vaccine. Supporters of the mandate, however, maintain that the policy was implemented in the interest of public health and student safety during a time of uncertainty.
Plaintiffs in the case argue that they were given no meaningful opportunity to appeal the district’s decision to deny their exemption requests. Some employees claim they were placed on unpaid leave or terminated without explanation beyond their refusal to be vaccinated. The lawsuit alleges that these actions were not only unjust but also in violation of state and federal protections for religious freedom and medical autonomy.
The legal battle has put SLPS in the spotlight as school districts across the country reassess their policies in light of changing public health guidance. While vaccine mandates were widely implemented in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many districts have rolled back such requirements amid legal challenges and public opposition.
In addition to financial compensation, plaintiffs are seeking policy changes within SLPS to ensure that religious and medical exemptions are fairly evaluated in the future. They argue that no employee should have to choose between their job and their deeply held beliefs or health concerns.
Legal experts say the outcome of this case could set a precedent for other lawsuits involving workplace vaccine mandates. While courts have generally upheld employer vaccine mandates when exemptions are fairly considered, rulings against government entities like SLPS could lead to further scrutiny of how these mandates were enforced.
Legal analysts suggest that mediation efforts between the remaining plaintiffs and SLPS may result in additional settlements, avoiding a lengthy jury trial. However, if mediation fails, the trial could bring further scrutiny to how the district handled its vaccine mandate and could expose systemic issues in the exemption approval process.
This lawsuit is one of many similar cases across the country where employees are challenging workplace vaccine mandates. In some instances, courts have ruled in favor of employees, awarding damages and requiring policy changes. In others, employers have successfully defended their mandates by citing public health concerns and the need to maintain a safe working environment. While the COVID-19 pandemic prompted unprecedented public health measures, legal battles like this one suggest that courts will continue to play a critical role in determining the limits of government-imposed mandates.
