Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Full Docket Federal Contractor Mandates Georgia Sdga 1 21 Cv 00163 11Th 21 14269 Doc 039 Att 0

Court filing

Georgia Sdga 1 21 Cv 00163 11Th 21 14269 Doc 039 Att 0

Filed November 10, 2021 in Federal Contractor Mandates; one of 57 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtUnited States District Court, For The Southern District Of Georgia, Augusta Division
Filed2021-11-10

United States District Court, For The Southern District Of Georgia, Augusta Division · No. 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE · Doc. 39 · 2021-11-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
AUGUSTA DIVISION 
 
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al. 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
 
JOSEPH R. BIDEN in his official 
capacity as President of the United 
States, et al. 
 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 1:21-cv-163-RSB-BKE 
 
 
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO  
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING 
Defendants hereby oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to expedite briefing in this case. ECF 23. 
Plaintiffs’ proposed, expedited schedule unnecessarily truncates Defendants’ time to respond to 
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. As Plaintiffs themselves note, exceptional care 
and space is needed to address the “significant issues raised by Plaintiffs and the complicated 
statutory, regulatory, and constitutional issues encompassed by Plaintiffs’ [11] claims,” Pls.’ 
Mot. to Exceed Page Limitation, ECF No. 7. Moreover, the federal government has recently 
taken action that may moot or, at minimum, materially alter the scope of, Plaintiffs’ claims. 
Therefore, the appropriate next step is for Plaintiffs to review their claims and determine whether 
they intend to proceed with this lawsuit.  To the extent Plaintiffs still wish to proceed, any claims 
they may bring should address the federal government’s updated policy. There is certainly no 
reason to rush preliminary injunction briefing on the federal government’s prior policy that has 
now in the process of being superseded. 
Plaintiffs’ claims concern the federal government’s requirement that certain federal 
contractor employees receive COVID-19 vaccines and adhere to other public safety protocols. 
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE   Document 39   Filed 11/10/21   Page 1 of 4

2 
 
These requirements are intended to slow the spread of COVID-19 and to prevent disruptions in 
the provision of government services by federal contractors. Executive Order 14042 directs 
federal executive departments and agencies, “to the extent permitted by law,” to include in 
qualifying contracts a clause requiring compliance with workplace safety guidance issued by the 
Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force).  86 Fed. Reg. at 50,985; see also id. at 
50,986–50,987 (listing the categories of contracts to which the EO applies).  The Executive 
Order delegates to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the President’s 
statutory authority to determine whether the Task Force’s guidance “will promote economy and 
efficiency in Federal contracting if adhered to by Government contractors and subcontractors.”  
Id. at 50,985-50,986 (citing 3 U.S.C. § 301). On September 24, 2021, the Director of OMB 
determined that the Task Force Guidance will promote economy and efficiency in federal 
contracting.  See 86 Fed. Reg. 53,691–53,692. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction 
challenges this determination.   
Earlier today, OMB submitted a notice for publication in the Federal Register entitled 
“Determination of the Acting OMB Director Regarding the Revised Safer Federal Workforce 
Task Force Guidance and the Revised Economy & Efficiency Analysis Pursuant to Executive 
Order No. 14042.” A copy of the Determination that OMB sent to the Federal Register is 
attached as Exhibit 1.1 OMB’s new determination both incorporates revised Task Force 
Guidance and includes additional analysis to elaborate on the substance of the OMB Director’s 
determination. OMB has asked the Federal Register to accept the filing immediately (i.e., today), 
                                              
1 The process of accepting OMB’s updated Determination for publication in the Federal 
Register may result in ministerial, non-substantive changes to the version of the attached 
Determination. Defendants will notify the Court once the final version of the Determination is 
published in the Federal Register. 
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE   Document 39   Filed 11/10/21   Page 2 of 4

3 
 
although it remains unclear as of the time of this filing whether that will occur.  OMB’s 
determination will be legally effective when the Federal Register accepts the filing, which the 
Government expects could be anytime between this afternoon and Monday, November 15.  
The Revised Guidance formally extends the deadline for covered Federal contractor and 
subcontractors to be fully vaccinated from December 8, 2021 to January 18, 2022. This new 
deadline aligns with the vaccination deadline in the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration Emergency Temporary Standard and the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid’s rule. In other words, to comply with this deadline, a covered employee of a federal 
contractor would need to receive a single-shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, or a second 
shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, by January 4, 2022, and would be fully vaccinated two 
weeks afterwards. While Plaintiffs claim that the court must rule by December 7, 2021 “to 
prevent Plaintiffs from suffering irreparable harm,” Pls.’ Mot. to Expedite Briefing at 2, they fail 
to explain why any irreparable harm would accrue by that date, since employees can begin their 
vaccinations as late as January 4, 2022, if they so choose.  
The revised Determination makes several changes material to this litigation.  For 
example, the revised Determination explains that, although not subject to the procedural 
requirements in 41 U.S.C. § 1707, it nevertheless complies with those requirements. The new 
Determination also provides additional economy-and-efficiency analysis underlying the OMB 
Director’s determination. When the OMB Director’s new Determination becomes legally 
effective, it rescinds and supersedes the prior Determination and may therefore moot or narrow 
the scope of several claims brought by Plaintiffs.  
OMB’s transmittal of a new determination on the Task Force Guidance, the weighty 
statutory and constitutional issues at play, and the recent six-week extension of time for covered 
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE   Document 39   Filed 11/10/21   Page 3 of 4

4 
 
contractor employees to be fully vaccinated all counsel in favor of denying Plaintiffs’ motion to 
expedite briefing. Instead, Plaintiffs should await the publication of OMB’s new Determination 
and decide whether and to what extent they wish to proceed with any revised claims. 
 
Dated: November 10, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRIAN M. BOYNTON 
Acting Assistant Attorney General 
 
BRAD P. ROSENBERG 
Assistant Branch Director 
Civil Division 
 
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal 
VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL 
LEE REEVES 
Trial Attorneys 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 
P.O. Box No. 883, Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, DC 20044 
Phone: (202) 305-0845 
Fax: (202) 616-8470 
E-mail: vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov 
 
/s/ Matthew A. Josephson 
Matthew A. Josephson 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar. No. 367216 
Post Office Box 8970 
Savannah, Georgia 31412 
Telephone: (912) 652-4422 
Email: Matthew.Josephson@usdoj.gov 
 
 
Attorneys for Defendants 
 
 
 
Case 1:21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE   Document 39   Filed 11/10/21   Page 4 of 4

File and source

File
Georgia_SDGA_1-21-cv-00163_11th-21-14269__doc-039__att-0.pdf
Size
157,870 bytes
SHA-256
ee4a759d80eff430295a2a8c72e4ae3a43a43e7a50d9ee958a7df5a29008a12f
Our copy
Georgia_SDGA_1-21-cv-00163_11th-21-14269__doc-039__att-0.pdf
Original
storage.courtlistener.com
Back to top