San Bernardino Superior Judge Wilfred Schneider Jr. threw out a lawsuit March 29 by a Redlands teacher who claimed the school district discriminated against him by not granting him a masking or COVID-19 testing exemption.
Reginald Pulliam, a Citrus Valley High School special-education teacher, claimed in an Oct. 15 filing that being required to wear a mask and test for COVID-19 violated his religious rights.
“…His fourth claim, on religious discrimination, failed because the state’s masking and vaccination/testing order did not have a religious exemption, his teaching position could be moved remote, the district did not make the policy, and he did not suffer from the policy.”
From the Redlands Unified School District’s motion
Schneider agreed with the Redlands Unified School District’s argument that the district’s actions are protected from lawsuits under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute.
The district argued that they were communicating the state’s policy, which held that all public school employees must be masked and either receive the COVID-19 vaccine or undergo weekly testing.
“The District’s publication of the public health orders that it must follow, meant to shield students and other employees from the adverse effects of contracting COVID-19, was not meant to harass, discriminate against or retaliate against Plaintiff,” the school district wrote in their motion to strike.
“Failing to follow the public health orders would subject the District to penalties and additional scrutiny by the county and state. More importantly, failing to follow the public health orders could have caused the District’s students, employees or individuals in the surrounding community to suffer from the effects of COVID-19, which has proven to cause serious illness and death.”
The district argued that Pulliam’s suit should have been against the state or county, but not the district.
California’s anti-SLAPP statute establishes that a lawsuit based on the defendant’s comments on public issues can be easily dismissed.
“The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process,” the law reads.
Pulliam’s complaint listed eight causes of action:
- Disability discrimination, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Failure to accommodate, in violation of FEHA
- Failure to engage in the interactive process, in violation of FEHA
- Religious discrimination, in violation of FEHA
- Retaliation, in violation of FEHA
- Failure to prevent retaliation, in violation of FEHA
- Failure to prevent discrimination, in violation of FEHA
- Harassment, in violation of FEHA
“The True Hope Ministry preaches that God breathed life into man and when man breathes, he is breathing the breath of God. For that reason, veiling is strictly prohibited and viewed as being an affront to the Creator,” his complaint says.
In an Aug. 9 human resources meeting, the school district had granted Pulliam a testing and vaccination exemption, but required him to still wear a mask, according to the complaint.
In an Aug. 16 letter, the school district stated it could not grant Pulliam the testing exemption due to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s orders, according to the complaint.
Pulliam’s complaint also mentions health and medical conditions that he claims make him unable to comply with the vaccination or testing requirements, and that the school’s requirements imposed serious psychological hardships on him that affected his work.
The district claimed that Pulliam’s first, second, third, fifth and sixth causes were baseless, because they require disabilities to be proven, and he never claimed to have a disability.
Their motion said his fourth claim, on religious discrimination, failed because the state’s masking and vaccination/testing order did not have a religious exemption, his teaching position could be moved remote, the district did not make the policy, and he did not suffer from the policy.
“As Plaintiff has readily complied with wearing a mask and being tested weekly, as required by the K-12 public health order, as every single other K—12 must do, Plaintiff cannot present any evidence he is being treated different due to his protected trait,” the district said.
Pulliam did not prove he was harassed, causing his final cause to also fail, the district said.
The district neglected to mention Pulliam’s second failure to prevent action cause.
Pulliam also filed a corresponding complex case, which may be dismissed for failure to serve.
San Bernardino Superior Judge Wilfred Schneider Jr. presided.
Gary Carlin and Alexander Zaimi of the Long Beach Law Offices of Gary Carlin represent Pulliam.
Dennis Walsh and Antoine Pitts of Encino’s Walsh & Associates, APC, represents the school district.
Case No. CIVSB2129676
Complex Case No. CIVSB2129227
Read the complaint here.
Read the district’s motion here.
