Woodruff v. Caris MPI ( 2022 )

Case: 21-11249 Document: 00516487841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 28, 2022
No. 21-11249 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Joseph Woodruff; Erica Jobe;
Mandee Katz; Scott Babjak,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Caris MPI, Incorporated;
Caris Life Sciences, Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CV-2993
Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendants Caris MPI, Inc. and Caris Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively,
“Caris”) required their then-employees, Plaintiffs Joseph Woodruff, Erika
Jobe, Mandee Katz, and Scott Babjak, to receive the COVID-19 vaccine or
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-11249 Document: 00516487841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-11249
face termination. Following the denials of their exemption requests,
Plaintiffs sought a TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing
their termination, or, alternatively, an injunction ordering their
reinstatement pending resolution of their respective complaints with the
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”). Following a
hearing, the district court denied the preliminary injunction request based on
a lack of irreparable harm, but it did not reach the alternative request, which
was not yet ripe. After Plaintiffs appealed, Caris fired them. Caris moves to
dismiss the appeal. We VACATE as moot the district court’s order denying
injunctive relief but REMAND for further proceedings.
Caris implemented a policy on September 17, 2021 that required its
employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine on or before December 1, 2021.
Employees who worked exclusively from home were excluded from the
mandate, and others could seek exemptions for medical or religious reasons.
Non-compliant, non-exempt employees were subject to termination.
Woodruff, Jobe, Katz, and Babjak each requested religious
exemptions, while Jobe and Katz also sought medical exemptions. Caris
denied those requests. 1 It also declined to grant any appeals. Plaintiffs then
filed discrimination complaints with the Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission (“EEOC”). Babjak received a notice of Charge of
Discrimination, but the record reflects no additional activity involving the
EEOC. 2
1
Caris did, however, apparently grant religious exemptions to four employees
under Woodruff’s supervision.
2
We were informed during oral argument that one plaintiff has received a right to
sue letter.
2
Case: 21-11249 Document: 00516487841 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-11249
On November 30, Plaintiffs concurrently filed a complaint and an
application seeking a TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions. First,
Plaintiffs sought to “enjoin CARIS from enforcing its vaccine mandate and
firing [them] because the mandate is illegal because it violates Governor
Abbot’s [Executive Order GA-40].” That first basis for injunctive relief
relates to Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) for a declaration that
the vaccination mandate violates GA-40. Second, Plaintiffs sought
“injunctive relief pending the outcome of their EEOC complaints.” This
second basis for injunctive relief relates to Plaintiffs’ religious discrimination
claims under Title VII and disability discrimination claims under the ADA,
asserted by Katz and Jobe.
On December 1, the district court held a hearing and orally denied
Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, following up with a formal order two
days later. The court ruled exclusively on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to
establish a substantial threat of immediate and irreparable harm if their
application was not granted. Plaintiffs timely appealed.
Caris terminated Woodruff, Jobe, and Katz soon after the court’s
order, and it terminated Babjak almost three months later for his failure to
comply with the vaccine policy. Plaintiffs seek in this appeal the relief not
mentioned by the district court, “reinstatement of their positions while
awaiting [] a decision from the EEOC.” Plaintiffs’ appeal is limited to their
Title VII claims. Because they mention neither the request for declaratory
relief based on GA-40 nor Katz’s and Jobe’s ADA claims, those issues are
forfeited. Caris filed a merits brief in response and moved to dismiss the
appeal as non-justiciable due to mootness or lack of standing. This court
carried the motion to dismiss with the case.
We review questions of federal jurisdiction, including mootness and
standing, de novo. Envtl. Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 524
3
Case: 21-11249 Document: 00516487841 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-11249
(5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d
551, 562 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Whether mootness or standing
analysis comes first is discretionary because a reviewing court can “choose
among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits[.]”
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 585, 119 S. Ct. 1563, 1570
(1999). Because this appeal is moot, we need not address standing.
“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a Case or
Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the issues presented are no
longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S. Ct. 721, 726 (2013)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court must dismiss an
action “[i]f an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a personal
stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during litigation[.]”
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 669, 193 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2016)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). But that situation occurs
only “when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever
to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000,
567 U.S. 298, 307, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2287 (2012) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Further, we have “long been careful to note an exception to the
general principle of mootness in instances where some issues of a case have
become moot but the case as a whole remains alive because other issues have
not become moot.” La. Env’t Action Network v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 581 (5th
Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In other words,
“[w]here several forms of relief are requested and one of these requests
subsequently becomes moot, [courts have] still considered the remaining
requests.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n.8, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 1951
(1969) (citing Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., 258 U.S. 346,
4
Case: 21-11249 Document: 00516487841 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-11249
394, 42 S. Ct. 360, 361 (1922)); see also University of Texas v. Camenisch,
451 U.S. 390, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 1833 (1981) (acknowledging “another instance
in which one issue in a case has become moot, but the case as a whole remains
alive because other issues have not become moot[]”); Hinkley v. Envoy Air,
Inc., 968 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted) (“[R]esolution of a
particular issue may be moot even if other issues on appeal remain ripe.”).
This case is a paradigm of the La. Env’t Action Network “exception.”
Plaintiffs’ appeal is moot, but a live controversy remains in the district court.
As to the appeal, the district court only denied Plaintiffs’ request for an
“order enjoining CARIS from enforcing its vaccine mandate and terminating
their employment[.]” After Caris terminated Plaintiffs, no order of this court
could affect the parties’ rights regarding whether Plaintiffs’ terminations
should have been enjoined. See Marilyn T., Inc. v. Evans, 803 F.2d 1383, 1384
(5th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Lacking the ability to grant any effectual
relief with respect to the completed terminations, we must dismiss this
appeal as moot. See id; see also Knox, 567 U.S. at 307-08, 132 S. Ct. at 2287(citations omitted).
As to the underlying action, it remains alive. The district court did
not rule on Plaintiffs’ alternative request, still pending, for “an injunction
requiring reinstatement” pending resolution of their EEOC complaints.
Their request is based on Fifth Circuit precedent holding that federal courts
can in some circumstances order employers to reinstate former employees
“pending final disposition of [their] charge[s] before the [EEOC].” 3 See
3
Other circuits appear to be in accord, though their decisions are of similar older
vintage. See Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 566, 574 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Aronberg v. Walters,
755 F.2d 1114, 1116 (4th Cir. 1985); Sheehan v. Purolator Courier Corp., 676 F.2d 877, 887-
903 (2d Cir. 1981); McNail v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, 549 F.2d 538, 542 n. 10 (8th Cir. 1977); Berg v. Richmond Unified School Dist.,
5
Case: 21-11249 Document: 00516487841 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/28/2022
No. 21-11249
E.E.O.C. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 475 F.2d 579, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1973) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 854, 94 S. Ct. 152 (1973). In addition, “[w]hen
an appeal from an interlocutory order concerning injunctive relief becomes
moot, appellate courts routinely decline to address the other issues remaining
before the district court.” Marilyn T., Inc., 803 F.2d at 1385 n.5 (collecting
cases); see also id. (citing Crowell v. Mader, 444 U.S. 505, 506, 100 S. Ct. 992(1980)(per curiam). That precedent is applicable here and counsels us to
decline to consider the reinstatement remedy in the first instance. We leave
the resolution of that claim to the district court.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE as moot the district court’s
order denying injunctive relief and REMAND for further proceedings
consistent herewith.
528 F.2d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 434 U.S. 158, 98 S. Ct. 623(1977).
6