A coronavirus vaccination policy for employees at Hawaiian Airlines is being challenged in federal court.
Seven people who up until this month had been working for Hawaiian sued the airline in U.S. District Court in Honolulu recently, and the lawsuit seeks to have the complaint become a class-action case representing close to 300 others who allegedly are being put out of work for not complying with the airline’s vaccination rules.
The complaint contends that the airline has unfairly rejected nearly 100% of requests for religious or medical exemptions to the company’s requirement that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
John Sullivan, an attorney with Texas-based law firm S L Law, who filed the case with Honolulu-based attorney James Hochberg, said the state’s largest air carrier has put most of roughly 270 employees with rejected exemption requests on unpaid leave while it works through a collective-bargaining process to fire these employees.
At least one nonunionized worker, and possibly more, has been fired over the policy, Sullivan added.
“Hawaiian seeks to impose onto plaintiffs the choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine — at the expense of their religious beliefs and/or their health — or losing their livelihoods,” the lawsuit, filed Jan. 5, said. “Employees must choose vaccination or termination.”
Hawaiian announced its coronavirus vaccination policy in August, saying that all of its U.S.-based employees, representing most of its 6,800-person workforce at the time, would need to be vaccinated unless they applied for and were granted a medical or religious exemption that would allow them to be tested regularly instead.
The airline’s policy was to go into effect Nov. 1, but the lawsuit said unvaccinated employees without an approved exemption could opt for regular testing and not face termination until Jan. 30.
Additionally, unionized unvaccinated employees were given an option to take a one-year unpaid leave of absence before being terminated, during which they would not receive health or flight benefits, the lawsuit said.
The airline, in response to the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Hawaiian will refute specific claims in court, but we take very seriously the risks to our employees, guests and communities caused by the pandemic, and the religious beliefs and medical concerns of employees who have declined to be vaccinated. Hawaiian has worked hard to make the appropriate rules and decisions, consistent with its legal obligations, to prioritize the safety of our people, the traveling public, and the communities we serve.”
The lawsuit contends that the airline regarded the rejected religious exemption requests as being based on a personal preference expressed in a context of religious beliefs that didn’t amount to a sincere religious objection.
As for medical exemptions, the lawsuit claims that the airline rejected requests that were based on employees having diseases or ailments that aren’t considered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be a cause for not getting a vaccine.
For instance, one plaintiff in the case, Ronald Lum, a captain placed on unpaid leave, claimed a medical exemption along with a religious one based on his body being a temple of the Holy Spirit that should not be altered with an unwanted intrusion given specific scriptural commands in the Bible, the lawsuit said.
Another plaintiff, Riki O’Hailpin, a flight attendant placed on unpaid leave, offered similar reasons in seeking an exemption.
The other plaintiffs worked at Hawaiian as a flight attendant, first officer, aircraft technician, management trainer and customer service agent. They are Nina Arizumi, Robert Espinosa, Erwin Young, Puanani Badiang and Sabrina Franks.
“The company has a duty under federal law to accommodate the civil rights of its religious and disabled employees,” Sullivan said in a statement. “Instead, Hawaiian is terminating hundreds of loyal employees or placing them on unpaid leave with no benefits and termination to follow unless they take the vaccine. And this is at a time when the airline is short on workers to staff its flights.”
The lawsuit contends that Hawaiian is violating federal anti-discrimination regulations by denying reasonable religious or medical accommodations for its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
A court hearing to consider whether to prohibit Hawaiian from putting employees out of work over the policy before merits of the case can be argued is scheduled for Feb. 1.
