The temporary restraining order entered on behalf of the plaintiffs is vacated.
On April 8, 2022, the Sangamon County circuit court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on behalf of the following plaintiffs who are teachers employed by defendant, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago School District No. 299, and members of the Chicago Teachers Union (union): Lena Carrillo, Ashley Rafalin, Yalila Assria-Herrera, Margarita Mayas, Mary Kelly, and Vanessa Rodriguez. Defendant appeals, asking this court to vacate the TRO for a variety of reasons. After considering the arguments of the parties, we hold the circuit court erred in granting the TRO and vacate the TRO.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2021, defendant announced its employees who had not submitted proof of vaccination for COVID-19 could continue working if the employees took a COVID-19 test on a weekly basis. Under defendant’s policy, a teacher who did not provide proof of vaccination or comply with required weekly testing could be deemed ineligible to work and placed on a nondisciplinary administrative leave until the teacher complied with the policy of either vaccination or weekly testing. A teacher’s continued noncompliance with the policy could result in disciplinary action. […]
On April 8, 2022, the circuit court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. The court indicated plaintiffs had presented a legitimate issue as to defendant’s authority to implement its policy because the Department “is the entity that has ‘general supervision of the interests of the health and lives of the people of the State, has supreme authority in matters of quarantine and isolation, and may declare and enforce quarantine and isolation when none exists and may modify or relax quarantine and isolation when it has been established.’ See 20 ILCS 2305/2.” The court then stated it had previously found “vaccines and testing are forms of quarantine which are subject to due process.” Further, the court indicated defendant had not identified any statutory authority authorizing it to create a policy requiring its employees to either receive the COVID-19 vaccine or test weekly. […]
ANALYSIS […]
Ordinarily, a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a TRO will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion. […]
In its order granting the TRO, the circuit court indicated the General Assembly has “made it clear that plaintiffs have a due process right to object before being subjected to vaccination, testing, isolation, or quarantine, all of which are alleged to prevent the spread of an infectious disease.” However, the statute relied upon by the trial court does not state a public school district must obtain a court order before it can place a teacher on unpaid administrative leave for refusing to either get vaccinated or tested on a weekly basis. Instead, the statute affords an individual the right to due process if he or she does not consent to an order from the Department or a certified local health department. This case does not involve a situation where the Department or a certified local health department has ordered plaintiffs to do anything. […]
At issue in this case is a policy that only applies to defendant’s employees. Plaintiffs argue neither defendant nor other school districts are “the protectors of overall public health.” We agree but fail to see how this bolsters plaintiffs’ position on appeal. Defendant’s policy is not calculated to maintain the health of the community at large. Nothing in the policy restricts the plaintiffs’ activities, movement, or interactions anywhere outside of the workplace. Finally, we stress the weekly test defendant is requiring plaintiffs to take is noninvasive, nonharmful, self- administered, free to the teachers, available on school property, and can be taken during paid working hours. While it may be questionable why only unvaccinated employees are required to take these weekly tests, the tests and the manner defendant makes the tests available to its employees do not appear unreasonable.
Based on the specific facts and arguments in this case, we are not persuaded plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. As a result, we vacate the TRO issued by the circuit court.
For the reasons stated above, we hold the circuit court erred by granting plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Therefore, we vacate the TRO issued by the circuit court on April 8, 2022, at 2:22 p.m.
