ABC must go to trial over claims of
religious discrimination from two former General Hospital crewmembers who were
fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccination. This ruling clears the way for a
trial over terminations related to blanket vaccine mandates imposed by studios
during the pandemic.
 |
| 'General Hospital' DISNEY/ERIC MCCANDLESS |
A Los Angeles judge issued an order on Tuesday, finding that James and Timothy Wahl may have had sincerely held religious beliefs that ABC should have accommodated by granting them exemptions and allowing them to follow safety protocols implemented before mandatory vaccination policies were introduced.
The recent ruling follows ABC's
success in a similar lawsuit involving Ingo Rademacher, who was dismissed from
General Hospital for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. In Rademacher's case, the
court found that unvaccinated actors in close, unmasked contact with others
could not safely work on set due to the nature of their work.
ABC, along with other studios,
implemented vaccine mandates in the summer of 2021, in accordance with
agreements reached by Hollywood's guilds and studios. These mandates required
vaccines for individuals working in "Zone
A" of a production, which typically includes main actors and key
crewmembers who work closely with them in high-risk areas of the set.
In 2022, James and Timothy Wahl, who both worked in the special effects department of General Hospital, sued ABC after their requests for religious exemptions were denied. ABC rejected their requests due to uncertainty about whether their objections to the vaccine were based on their Christian faith.
ABC argued that the Wahls'
religious beliefs were not genuine and that even if they were, accommodating
them would cause undue hardship. The network also claimed that IATSE, the union
representing crewmembers, had waived members' rights to object to mandatory
vaccination policies.
However, the court ruled against
ABC on summary judgment, suggesting that the studio may have discriminated
against the Wahls based on their religion by not finding a way to accommodate
their refusal to get vaccinated.
In contrast, in Rademacher's case,
Judge Stephen Goorvitch sided with ABC. He noted that Rademacher had refused to
cooperate with Disney officials investigating his request for an exemption from
vaccine mandates, claiming to be a follower of a book called The Revelation of
Ramala.
Unlike in Rademacher's case, the court determined that a jury should determine whether the Wahls genuinely held their beliefs.
In a deposition, Disney ABC TV
Group's VP of production, Dominick Nuzzi, testified that he became involved in
the accommodation process once a request was accepted. He participated in
discussions about granting an exemption to one of the Wahls but ultimately
decided against it.
“This testimony suggests that Defendant may have initially believed one
of the plaintiffs, which supports both cases: Plaintiffs are father and son,
and there is sufficient evidence in the record that they share the same belief
system,” the order stated.
The court also concluded that ABC
could have accommodated the Wahls without significant financial or logistical
hardship.
In Rademacher's case, Goorvitch concluded that such accommodations for the actor were not feasible because of his interactions with other performers onstage, necessitating close proximity without a mask, which posed a safety risk.
“This decision is consistent with other cases where courts have
determined that actors cannot be accommodated with pre-vaccine protocols due to
the nature of their work requiring close, unmasked contact with other
performers,” the judge wrote in the order.
In contrast, the Wahls primarily
worked behind the scenes, overseeing the construction and special effects shops
for the show. Although they occasionally had to enter “Zone A” of the production, where the main cast was filming, they
regularly tested for COVID-19, always wore masks, and made efforts to socially
distance from the cast.
The court stated that a reasonable accommodation could have been allowing the Wahls to adhere to safety protocols that were in place from July 2020 to the fall of 2021, before vaccine mandates were implemented. During this period, the General Hospital production did not experience a virus outbreak, according to lawyers for the crewmembers.
“The Court’s ‘hands are tied,’ as they say,” the order stated. “There are enough disputed facts that the
jury, not the judge, must decide whether Plaintiffs could have been
accommodated without an undue hardship to Defendant.”
In a victory for ABC, the court
also determined that ABC does not need to address a claim for invasion of
privacy. Last year, the Wahls withdrew claims for disability discrimination,
retaliation, and wrongful termination.
ABC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In another case involving an actor
contesting his dismissal after being denied a vaccine exemption, federal judge
Dolly Gee dismissed some claims from Rockmond Dunbar. She ruled that producers
Disney and 20th Television did not have to address a disparate impact claim,
which alleged that they implemented a vaccination policy discriminating against
followers of the Church of Universal Wisdom. However, they still face several
other claims.
One common thread in lawsuits against Disney and its subsidiaries has been the manner in which the company handles requests for religious exemptions. Interviews to evaluate these requests seem to be conducted by Disney lawyers, who investigate the backgrounds of those seeking exemptions. Dunbar's religious exemption was rejected because he had previously gotten tattoos and ear piercings, which contradicted his beliefs as a member of the Church of Universal Wisdom.
Rademacher's exemption was denied
partly because his religion lacked the formal characteristics of established
religious institutions, and ABC believed that his opposition to vaccination was
based more on health or efficacy concerns rather than his faith, according to
court documents in the case.
Wahl v. ABC by THR
0 Comments