Third Circuit Reaffirms “No Fundamental Right to Refuse a COVID-19 Vaccine in Public Employment” – Commentary on Cuttler v. Allegheny County (3d Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

Jeffrey L. Cuttler, a former lawyer in the Allegheny County Office of the Public Defender (OPD), sued the County and several officials after being terminated in January 2022 for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate imposed on County employees. Proceeding pro se, he asserted five causes of action: state-law wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and two federal claims—(i) a Fourteenth Amendment substantive- and equal-protection challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (ii) an alleged violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).

The District Court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the state counts. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in a non-precedential opinion filed 20 June 2025. Although technically unpublished, the panel’s reasoning solidifies an emerging body of COVID-19 vaccine jurisprudence in the Circuit: public-employment mandates are subject only to rational-basis review because refusing vaccination is not a fundamental right, and terminating non-compliant employees generally withstands equal-protection challenges absent disparate treatment of similarly situated persons.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Substantive Due Process: The court held that the liberty interest at stake is the right to refuse a vaccine, which is not a fundamental right under Supreme Court precedent (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905) and Third-Circuit authority (Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, 2024). Therefore, rational-basis review applies.
• Rational Basis Satisfied: Allegheny County’s policy—grounded in CDC guidance to curb COVID-19 spread and protect public health—easily met the rational-basis standard. The panel rejected plaintiff’s attempt to rely on selective quotations from a CNN interview with then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky.
• Equal Protection (Class-of-One): Cuttler failed to allege that he was treated differently from any similarly situated unvaccinated employee, let alone without a rational basis. Termination for policy non-compliance provided such a basis.
• OSHA: The claim was abandoned on appeal and, in any event, no private right of action exists for OSHA violations (Third Circuit precedent).
• Dismissal With Prejudice: Amendment would be futile; state claims were properly dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
  The seminal vaccination case. Jacobson upheld a smallpox vaccine mandate under the state’s police power. The Third Circuit echoed its central teaching: courts look only for a “reasonable relation” between the mandate and public health.
• Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, 93 F.4th 66 (3d Cir. 2024):
  Involving a university-student mandate; clarified that bodily-integrity rights narrowly protect freedom from forced medical treatment for self-regarding decisions, not refusal to vaccinate during a pandemic. Cuttler imports that reasoning into the public-employment sphere.
• We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F.4th 266 (2d Cir. 2021)  and  Norris v. Stanley, 73 F.4th 431 (6th Cir. 2023):
  Sister-circuit authorities confirming that vaccination as a condition of healthcare employment is constitutionally permissible under rational-basis review. The panel cited these cases to emphasize national consensus.
• Newark Cab Ass’n v. Newark, 901 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2018):
  Provides the framework for “class-of-one” equal-protection claims; applied to show pleading deficiencies.
• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993):
  Governs incorporation of documents referenced in a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, allowing the County’s full policy to be considered.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

Although designated “Not Precedential,” Cuttler is likely to be cited for its persuasive value under 3d Cir. I.O.P. 5.7 and by district courts confronting similar litigation. Key ramifications include:

• Public Employment Context: Extends Children’s Health Defense beyond the university setting, confirming that governmental employers may impose vaccination as a condition of employment without implicating heightened scrutiny.
• Scope of Bodily-Autonomy Jurisprudence: Reinforces the principle that autonomy rights are highly context-specific; forced vaccination differs from employment consequences of non-compliance.
• Class-of-One Litigation: Sets a practical pleading hurdle—mere possession of a medical note is insufficient to show discriminatory treatment.
• Judicial Deference to Public-Health Measures: Affirms continued reliance on Jacobson even post-Roman Catholic Diocese, so long as mandates are secular and nondiscriminatory.
• OSHA Claims: Reiterates lack of a private enforcement mechanism, nudging plaintiffs toward administrative remedies.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Substantive Due Process: Constitutional doctrine guarding certain fundamental liberties from government interference. If a liberty is fundamental, courts apply strict scrutiny; if not, only a rational connection between the law and a legitimate interest is required.
• Rational-Basis Review: The most deferential form of judicial review; the policy need only be “reasonably related” to some legitimate government objective. The government does not need to use the best or most effective means.
• Class-of-One Equal-Protection Claim: A plaintiff alleges unique, irrational discrimination without belonging to a traditional protected class. Requires proof that (1) similarly situated persons were treated differently, and (2) no rational reason explains the disparity.
• Private Right of Action: The ability of a private individual to sue under a statute. OSHA generally entrusts enforcement to the Secretary of Labor; individuals may not sue employers directly for OSHA violations.
• Futility of Amendment: A court may dismiss with prejudice if, even assuming new facts, the legal theory would still fail.

5. Conclusion

Cuttler v. Allegheny County fortifies a clear trajectory in pandemic-related constitutional litigation within the Third Circuit: refusal to vaccinate against COVID-19 is not a fundamental right, and governments may lawfully condition public employment on compliance with vaccination requirements provided they articulate a rational public-health purpose. The decision underscores the limited judicial role in evaluating scientific policy choices and heightens the pleading standards for equal-protection “class-of-one” claims. While the ruling leaves state-law theories untouched, its federal analysis will likely deter similar suits premised on substantive-due-process or equal-protection arguments and steer future plaintiffs toward either legislative remedies or more nuanced factual distinctions.