Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis

E.D. Missouri

Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis

DecidedJune 6, 2025

Docket4:22-cv-00635

StatusUnknown

This text of Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis (Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

WANDA BRANDON et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:22-cv-00635-SRC ) BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

Order The Court “has the inherent power to reconsider and modify an interlocutory order any time prior to the entry of judgment.” K.C. 1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Murr Plumbing, Inc. v. Scherer Bros. Fin. Servs. Co., 48 F.3d 1066, 1070 (8th Cir. 1995)). In light of intervening Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court questions the viability of part of its prior holding regarding the admissibility of certain expert testimony, so the Court orders the parties to brief the issue as described below. The Court previously held that the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis’s expert witness, Dr. Daniel Salmon, may not render “opinions about stem cells and stem cells’ connection to COVID-19 vaccines.” Doc. 229 at 11 (The Court cites to page numbers as assigned by CM/ECF.). The Court reasoned: Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that their “religious beliefs prevented them from receiving the vaccination due to their use of fetal stem cells taken from aborted fetuses.” But once again, Dr. Salmon admitted that he didn’t know anything about Plaintiffs, and it follows that Dr. Salmon does not (and cannot) opine on the extent to which the stem-cell issue influenced Plaintiffs’ objections to COVID-19 vaccination. Objective facts about the vaccines’ connections to stem cells have no bearing on whether Plaintiffs objected to vaccination based on their religious beliefs, which “need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others” to merit protection under the law.

Id. (citations omitted). But in Kale v. Aero Simulation, Inc., No. 23-3380, 2025 WL 1585297 (8th Cir. June 5, 2025), the Eighth Circuit indicated that objective facts about employment requirements might have some relevance to a plaintiff’s religious-discrimination claims. The Court summarized Kale at length in a prior order. See doc. 308 at 1–2. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Matthew Kale’s complaint, in part, because Kale failed to make sufficient “factual allegations about the nature of the Covid-19 test” that his employer tried to make him take. Kale, 2025 WL 1585297, at *3. In other words, Kale’s general allegation that a COVID-19 test would cause an “unwanted intrustion[] into [his] body” did not suffice—Kale needed explain how the test would “intrude[] into Kale’s body in violation of his alleged religious beliefs.” Id. That explanation seems to require consideration of some objective information about the test. And, although Kale affirmed the grant of a motion to dismiss, the elements that a plaintiff must plead to survive a motion to dismiss have a direct relationship to the elements that a plaintiff must prove to prevail at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (providing that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). Here, the parties agree that, for Plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claims, they must prove that their sincerely held religious beliefs “conflicted with an employment requirement.” Doc. 284; doc. 204 at 11 (noting that the parties do not object to this element). Kale reiterates

that that element applies to Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claims, too. See Kale, 2025 WL 1585297, at *1 (“For each religious discrimination claim—Title VII, RFRA, and First Amendment—Kale must plausibly allege a bona fide religious belief that was burdened by an employment requirement.”). And as explained above, Kale seems to suggest that, to assess whether an employment requirement and a sincerely held religious belief conflict, a court must consider not only the “specific religious beliefs” at issue but also the objective reality of the employment requirement. /d. at *3. In light of all this, the Court questions whether its prior holding excluding Dr. Salmon’s opinions about stem cells and stem cells’ connection to COVID-19 vaccines can survive Kale. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to file, no later than noon on June 10, 2025, supplemental briefs on whether the Court should reconsider its holding excluding Dr. Salmon’s opinions about stem cells and stem cells’ connection to COVID-19 vaccines. Each party’s brief must not exceed five double-spaced pages, exclusive of a signature page and attachments. So ordered this 6th day of June 2025. str. Ce STEPHEN R. CLARK CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

WANDA BRANDON et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:22-cv-00635-SRC ) BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

Order The Court “has the inherent power to reconsider and modify an interlocutory order any time prior to the entry of judgment.” K.C. 1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Murr Plumbing, Inc. v. Scherer Bros. Fin. Servs. Co., 48 F.3d 1066, 1070 (8th Cir. 1995)). In light of intervening Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court questions the viability of part of its prior holding regarding the admissibility of certain expert testimony, so the Court orders the parties to brief the issue as described below. The Court previously held that the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis’s expert witness, Dr. Daniel Salmon, may not render “opinions about stem cells and stem cells’ connection to COVID-19 vaccines.” Doc. 229 at 11 (The Court cites to page numbers as assigned by CM/ECF.). The Court reasoned: Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that their “religious beliefs prevented them from receiving the vaccination due to their use of fetal stem cells taken from aborted fetuses.” But once again, Dr. Salmon admitted that he didn’t know anything about Plaintiffs, and it follows that Dr. Salmon does not (and cannot) opine on the extent to which the stem-cell issue influenced Plaintiffs’ objections to COVID-19 vaccination. Objective facts about the vaccines’ connections to stem cells have no bearing on whether Plaintiffs objected to vaccination based on their religious beliefs, which “need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others” to merit protection under the law.

Id. (citations omitted). But in Kale v. Aero Simulation, Inc., No. 23-3380, 2025 WL 1585297 (8th Cir. June 5, 2025), the Eighth Circuit indicated that objective facts about employment requirements might have some relevance to a plaintiff’s religious-discrimination claims. The Court summarized Kale at length in a prior order. See doc. 308 at 1–2. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Matthew Kale’s complaint, in part, because Kale failed to make sufficient “factual allegations about the nature of the Covid-19 test” that his employer tried to make him take. Kale, 2025 WL 1585297, at *3. In other words, Kale’s general allegation that a COVID-19 test would cause an “unwanted intrustion[] into [his] body” did not suffice—Kale needed explain how the test would “intrude[] into Kale’s body in violation of his alleged religious beliefs.” Id. That explanation seems to require consideration of some objective information about the test. And, although Kale affirmed the grant of a motion to dismiss, the elements that a plaintiff must plead to survive a motion to dismiss have a direct relationship to the elements that a plaintiff must prove to prevail at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (providing that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). Here, the parties agree that, for Plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claims, they must prove that their sincerely held religious beliefs “conflicted with an employment requirement.” Doc. 284; doc. 204 at 11 (noting that the parties do not object to this element). Kale reiterates

that that element applies to Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claims, too. See Kale, 2025 WL 1585297, at *1 (“For each religious discrimination claim—Title VII, RFRA, and First Amendment—Kale must plausibly allege a bona fide religious belief that was burdened by an employment requirement.”). And as explained above, Kale seems to suggest that, to assess whether an employment requirement and a sincerely held religious belief conflict, a court must consider not only the “specific religious beliefs” at issue but also the objective reality of the employment requirement. /d. at *3. In light of all this, the Court questions whether its prior holding excluding Dr. Salmon’s opinions about stem cells and stem cells’ connection to COVID-19 vaccines can survive Kale. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to file, no later than noon on June 10, 2025, supplemental briefs on whether the Court should reconsider its holding excluding Dr. Salmon’s opinions about stem cells and stem cells’ connection to COVID-19 vaccines. Each party’s brief must not exceed five double-spaced pages, exclusive of a signature page and attachments. So ordered this 6th day of June 2025. str. Ce STEPHEN R. CLARK CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-v-board-of-education-of-the-city-of-st-louis-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack