Trending Topics

Former Wash. first responders appeal COVID-19 vaccine refusal lawsuit decision

Former Bellingham first responders alleged that a 2021 vaccine mandate violated their rights and caused emotional distress through a “scorched-earth” enforcement policy

Bellingham Police Department bolsters staffing; city rejoins Whatcom County drug task force

“We really need to have these good partnerships in order to deal with fentanyl in our community,” Councilwoman Lisa Anderson said. “For the limited staffing, I think that this is really the next best step in our expansion and returning the services to our community.”

Bellingham Police Department via Facebook

By Hannah Edelman
The Bellingham Herald

BELLINGHAM, Wash. — Eighteen former city employees who sued Bellingham and former Mayor Seth Fleetwood over their dismissal for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate have appealed their case in federal court.

The plaintiffs, who include former police officers, firefighters, mechanics and Public Works Department employees, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Western District Court in Seattle on June 13, 2024. They claimed that the vaccine mandate issued by Fleetwood in September 2021 deprived them of equal protection rights, right to privacy and the option to refuse.

They wrote in the lawsuit that the defendants “engaged in a scorched-earth policy and inflicted, with malicious intent, emotional distress to the fullest extent that one in their positions of authority and power could inflict.”

The plaintiffs requested a jury trial and sought an unspecified amount of punitive and compensatory damages to make up for alleged harms like loss of income, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.

Attorneys for Fleetwood and the city of Bellingham submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Aug. 19, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims “suffer from inherent legal and factual deficiencies.”

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Rothstein granted the motion to dismiss the case on Jan. 21 . The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled or reopened. Rothstein disagreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that the Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19 was an “investigational drug” as well as allegations of violating constitutional and state law.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Feb. 18 . Opening arguments in their case are scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 2.

© 2025 The Bellingham Herald (Bellingham, Wash.).
Visit www.bellinghamherald.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Trending
The released footage shows Salt Lake City officers laughing as they used a box cutter to slice through blisters on the deceased man’s skin
The suspect, a known felon with outstanding warrants, fired at Maricopa police before officers returned fire and a detective struck him with a cruiser
The Hanceville Police force is on leave as the town meets to determine whether to restaff it following an investigation that found rampant mishandling of evidence and other issues
The DOJ stated the Biden administration had “branded the aptitude tests...as discriminatory in an effort to advance a DEI agenda,” with no evidence of intentional discrimination