But the district court denied preliminary injunctive relief on the ground that Plaintiffs could not demonstrate irreparable injury. reflects an apathy, if not antipathy, for many of its employees’ concerns and a dearth of toleration for those expressing diversity of thought.” Through both its policy and its official statements to employees, United has demonstrated a “calloused approach to” and “apparent disdain for” people of faith. Yet United’s CEO, Scott Kirby, told employees in a company town hall meeting that “very few” religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate would be granted, and that anyone who even attempted to request one would be “putting job on the line.” The district court thus concluded that “United’s mandate.
![fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary](https://www.votebrevard.gov/portals/brevard/Images/Photos/ElectedOfficials/Harris.jpg)
21-11159 not only unvaccinated passengers but also unvaccinated flight crew from other airlines as well as their own unvaccinated foreign employees on board.1 Second, Title VII forbids employers from retaliating against employees who attempt to exercise their statutory rights. Yet United is imposing a vaccine mandate on its employees despite their sincere religious objections- despite the company’s record admission that “there is virtually no chance to transmit COVID-19 on its planes” because “99% of its employees” are already vaccinated and federal regulations currently require all those on board to wear masks-and despite testimony that United currently allows No. § 2000e–2(a)(1), and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for “all aspects of” an employee’s religious beliefs, absent “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business,” 42 U.S.C. As to likelihood of success on the merits, I agree with the district court that Plaintiffs’ claims “appear compelling and convincing at this stage.” First, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, 42 U.S.C. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) permits us to grant such an injunction, provided that the plaintiffs show “(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits (2) irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction (3) that the balance of hardships weighs in their favor if injunctive relief is granted and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Before us today is Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for an injunction pending their appeal. The employees immediately filed this appeal. They sought preliminary injunctive relief to avoid indefinite unpaid suspension as the company threatened. So the employees filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
![fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary](https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/05/34/03/18202871/3/1200x0.jpg)
But various United employees contend that their religious views about the vaccine are in fact none of the company’s business. Ho, Circuit Judge, dissenting: United Airlines claims that it made the “business judgment” that every employee must obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, no matter what religious objections they might have.
![fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary](https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/442426/FLSA-overtime-rule.jpg)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ alternative opposed motion to expedite the appeal is GRANTED.
![fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary fifth circuit court of appeals judge salary](https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2021/10/IMG_2109-767x633.jpg)
21-11159 court’s Opinion & Order of Novemand Orders of Novemand November 23, 2021. Per Curiam: IT IS ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion for an injunction pending appeal is DENIED for the reasons stated in the district No. 4:21-CV-1074 Before Stewart, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. Cayce Clerk David Sambrano, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated David Castillo, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated Kimberly Hamilton, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated Genise Kincannon, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated Seth Turnbough, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus United Airlines, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED DecemNo.