A Los Angeles County judge has ruled that a police officer who was fired in 2022 after challenging the city's COVID-19 vaccination and testing mandate is entitled to back pay but will not have her job restored. Natalie Stringer, the former officer, had her right to respond to allegations prior to a disciplinary meeting denied by police department officials. However, the judge determined that the city did not violate labor laws and acted within its rights when terminating her based on her failure to comply with the employment condition.
This ruling comes after several other police officers and firefighters who were terminated over their vaccination status also had similar findings made against them. The judge's decision is a rebuff to challenges against the city's coronavirus protocols.
Stringer's lawyer, Greg Yacoubian, along with four other officers and two firefighters, plans to appeal the ruling. Yacoubian argues that the case is not about the vaccine itself but rather the city's requirement for employees to pay for COVID testing, an expense mandated by employers, within a tight deadline. He believes that the LAPD violated their due process rights by hastily terminating them without allowing representation or sufficient time to make decisions.
The city attorney's office and the LAPD declined to comment on the ruling due to pending litigation.
Before Stringer's firing, the city threatened to withhold pay for noncompliant employees and sent notices to thousands of workers who had not provided proof of vaccination or sought exemptions. Unvaccinated employees were required to undergo twice-weekly coronavirus testing at their own expense. However, those granted medical or religious exemptions would be reimbursed for the testing costs.
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on the LAPD, with thirteen employees losing their lives to the virus and several others experiencing long-term cases that required months of recovery. LAPD Chief Michel Moore noted that 150 people had left the department for other law enforcement agencies without a vaccine mandate.
Despite evolving attitudes towards COVID-19, medical experts emphasize that vaccines are safe and crucial in reducing cases of severe illness and death worldwide.
Stringer refused to comply with the city's authorized vendor for testing, Bluestone. Consequently, she was relieved from duty and later fired by Chief Moore, despite her supervisor expressing a desire to have her back on the force. Stringer argued that her rights were violated and that the city's vaccination conditions were illegal under the labor code. However, the judge found no basis to support her claim.
Although the judge did not restore Stringer's job, he ruled that she and three other officers were entitled to back pay because the city denied them their constitutional right to a pre-disciplinary meeting where they could respond to the allegations.
Another fired officer, Barbara “Bobby” Riggs, who had worked as a trainer at the police academy for 32 years, also had her termination ruled as unwarranted by the judge. Riggs claimed that the department sought to pressure and isolate non-compliant officers, even those seeking exemptions. She accused the department of sending non-compliant officers home and threatening to withhold their pay. Riggs believes that the department aimed to make compliance financially burdensome to force officers into compliance or resignation.
Appealing these cases poses challenges due to employers' considerable leeway in setting workplace requirements. Government entities, including the LAPD, have the authority to establish conditions of employment. Recent rulings have reinforced this authority, making it difficult to sue governments over pandemic-related work expenses.
While California has broader protections against firing workers with religious or other exemptions, employers are still within their rights to require compliance with vaccine mandates.
In conclusion, the Los Angeles County judge's ruling in Natalie Stringer's case grants her back pay but does not reinstate her job. The judge found that the city did not violate labor laws by terminating her based on her failure to comply with the vaccination and testing mandate. These cases highlight the challenges faced by employees and employers in navigating COVID-19 protocols and vaccine mandates.
