Colorado medical school to pay $10.3 million for violating religious rights in vaccine mandate
By avagrace // 2025-12-07
Copy
 
  • A major settlement was reached between the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine and 18 faculty and students, totaling over $10.3 million, for denying their religious exemption requests to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine.
  • A federal appeals court ruled the university's actions unconstitutional, finding its denial of exemptions was motivated by "religious animus" and violated the First Amendment by improperly judging the legitimacy of individuals' beliefs.
  • The settlement mandates significant policy changes, requiring the university to treat religious exemptions equally with medical ones and to stop assessing the validity of individuals' religious beliefs.
  • The case highlights a severe personal and professional cost, with plaintiffs forced to choose between their careers/education and their faith, resulting in career disruption and personal distress.
  • This establishes a strong legal precedent, reinforcing that the constitutional right to religious freedom cannot be suspended during a crisis and that institutions must engage in good-faith accommodation processes.
In a decisive rebuke of pandemic-era overreach, the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine has agreed to pay more than $10.3 million to settle a lawsuit brought by 18 faculty and students whose sincere religious objections to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine were systematically denied. Announced by the Thomas More Society, the legal group representing the plaintiffs, this settlement concludes nearly five years of intense litigation and stands as a rare instance where individuals have secured monetary damages from a government entity over a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, which played out in both state and federal courts, centered on the university's refusal to grant religious accommodations to its mandatory vaccination policy. The anonymous plaintiffs included physicians, medical students, nurses and administrative staff who held religious objections to the vaccines. Their lawsuit argued that the university's actions forced an unconscionable choice: violate their deeply held beliefs or sacrifice their careers and education. The legal turning point came in May 2024, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued a landmark ruling. The court reversed lower court decisions, finding that the university's refusal to grant religious exemptions was "motivated by religious animus" and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court detailed how the university engaged in illegal discrimination by granting exemptions unevenly—favoring some religions over others and treating secular medical exemptions more favorably than religious ones. Crucially, the appellate court reaffirmed a fundamental tenet of religious liberty law: government entities cannot act as arbiters of the legitimacy or doctrinal correctness of an individual's religious beliefs. The court declared the university's policies a violation of "clearly established" constitutional rights, setting a powerful precedent. Initially, the university rejected all religious exemption requests with a brief, boilerplate email from an anonymous "Vaccine Verify" committee, claiming the requests failed to demonstrate opposition to "all immunizations." This broad-brush denial failed to engage with the specific, sincere objections of each individual. During litigation, the university amended its policy, but the 10th Circuit ruled these changes insufficient, noting ongoing constitutional violations and attempts to avoid accountability. Many objectors cited concerns about the use of fetal cell lines in the development or testing of the COVID-19 vaccines, a common ethical objection for individuals of certain faiths. The university's response, which included questioning how these beliefs aligned with official statements from religious leaders, was seen by the court as an unconstitutional inquisition.

Settlement terms and institutional stance

The settlement, reached after more than a year of negotiations, includes a substantial financial component. The university will pay over $10.3 million to cover damages, reimbursed tuition and attorneys' fees for the 18 plaintiffs. Beyond the monetary award, the agreement mandates significant policy changes at the state-funded institution. The university must now treat student requests for religious exemptions on equal terms with employee requests and provide the same consideration for religious exemptions as it does for medical exemptions. Most importantly, the school agreed to cease assessing the legitimacy of individuals' religious beliefs, directly reversing the practices that sparked the lawsuit. The university no longer has a general COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place. Despite the settlement, the university released a statement standing by its original mandate, calling it "grounded in science, public health guidance and our obligation to safeguard lives during an unprecedented global crisis." It maintained that vaccination was essential to protecting the vulnerable and keeping healthcare institutions functioning.

The human cost and broader context

Legal representatives for the plaintiffs emphasized that no settlement could fully undo the harm inflicted. Individuals faced career disruption, profound personal distress and the trauma of being forced to choose between their vocation and their faith. One plaintiff described the university's actions as having "gutted the years of study and self-sacrifice" dedicated to serving others. This case is not an isolated incident but part of a nationwide wave of litigation challenging COVID-19 vaccine mandates that failed to properly accommodate religious beliefs. It echoes other significant settlements, such as the $10.3 million paid by NorthShore University HealthSystem in Illinois to over 500 healthcare workers in 2022. These cases collectively highlight a systemic failure by many large institutions during the pandemic to respect legally protected freedoms, even while pursuing public health objectives. The Colorado settlement, compelled by a forceful appellate court ruling, sends an unambiguous message to government agencies and public institutions: the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause is not suspended during a crisis. The requirement for employers and schools to engage in a good-faith, individualized accommodation process for religious beliefs remains a clear legal duty. "Religious freedom is the First Amendment right to publicly worship and acknowledge God, rooted in a higher natural law," said BrightU.AI's Enoch. "It requires protecting traditional religious expressions in public life from legal challenges. It also ensures government employees can express their religious beliefs equally." Watch a discussion on medical freedom triumph on vaccine exemptions in West Virginia. This video is from The Highwire with Del Bigtree channel on Brighteon.com. Sources include:  ChildrensHealthDefense.org CatholicNewsAgency.com ColoradoSun.com BrightU.ai Brighteon.com
Copy