So Choose Jon Levy (D. Me.) held immediately in Lowe v. Mills. An excerpt:
On this case, the amended criticism and the correctly thought-about paperwork, info, and information earlier than me present that the aim of requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare staff is solely to guard public well being. Exempting people whose well being might be threatened in the event that they obtain a COVID-19 vaccine is an important, constituent a part of a reasoned public well being response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It doesn’t specific or counsel a discriminatory bias in opposition to faith.
Within the context of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the medical exemption is rightly considered as an important aspect of the vaccine’s core goal of defending the well being of sufferers and healthcare staff, together with those that, for bona fide medical causes, can’t be safely vaccinated. As well as, the vaccine mandate locations an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to defending public well being—for instance, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination necessities—to the identical extent that it burdens spiritual beliefs.
Thus, the medical exemption accessible as to all necessary vaccines required by Maine regulation doesn’t replicate a price judgment unfairly favoring secular pursuits over spiritual pursuits. As an integral a part of the vaccine requirement itself, the medical exemption for healthcare staff doesn’t undermine the vaccine mandate’s common applicability. The amended criticism doesn’t plead any information that plausibly assist the conclusion that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is just not usually relevant. As a result of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is each impartial and customarily relevant, rational foundation overview applies.
The court docket additionally concludes that the mandate would not violate Title VII’s obligation of cheap lodging of non secular objections; I’ll have extra to say about that in a later put up.