The panel affirmed (1) the district court’s dismissal of Jonathan Schmidt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Pasadena and individually named City employees, alleging that the City’s COVID-19 safety policy requiring unvaccinated employees to complete weekly COVID testing and wear masks in shared spaces unlawfully harmed him, and (2) the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

​

In August 2021, the City of Pasadena implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy for its employees that required City employees to either receive the COVID-19 vaccination by September 17, 2021, or request a medical or religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. Schmidt, a forensic specialist in the Pasadena Police Department, requested and received a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement, but was required to test and wear a mask. He contends that the defendants created a hostile work environment by revealing his unvaccinated status through the masking and testing requirements.

​

The panel held that the defendants have immunity from all of Schmidt’s claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act, which provides immunity from federal and state law claims relating to the administration of certain medical countermeasures during a declared public health emergency. The panel held the statutory requirements of PREP Act immunity were met where: (1) both the City and individual defendants qualify as “covered person[s]” under the PREP Act because both engaged in the administration of a covered countermeasure; (2) the COVID-19 testing and face masks required by the City’s policy meet the PREP Act’s requirements for being considered a “covered countermeasure”; and (3) Schmidt’s claims were “caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from” the administration of a covered countermeasure.

​

Clarifying the causation requirement of the PREP Act’s immunity provision, the panel wrote that the district court erred by focusing on the types of legal claims Schmidt pleads rather than the type of injury he alleges. The panel held that Schmidt’s allegations that he suffered physical, emotional, and property damage as a direct result of the City’s COVID-19 safety policies are sufficient to establish causation for PREP Act immunity.

The panel further held that Schmidt failed to allege a valid ground for reconsideration or for finding that the district court abused its discretion in managing his case.

​

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/05/25-488.pdf

​