Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corporation, 678 F.Supp.3d 497

Algarin, a 32-year H+H IT employee who worked on-site but not with patients, refused COVID-19 vaccination in 2021 on religious grounds (objecting to vaccines tied to fetal cell lines) and sought to continue working via weekly testing.
H+H, a New York public benefit corporation, implemented the NY DOH vaccine mandate (10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.61); it initially granted then revoked Algarin’s testing accommodation, placed him on unpaid leave, and terminated his employment on November 29, 2021.
Algarin sued asserting Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Free Exercise, New York Executive Law (NYSHRL), and NYC Admin Code (NYCHRL) religious-discrimination claims; H+H moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The State rule Section 2.61 (adopted Aug 26, 2021) required vaccination for covered healthcare “personnel,” provides only a medical exemption, and had been litigated extensively in federal and state courts.
The court concluded that accommodating Algarin by allowing testing in lieu of vaccination would force H+H to violate Section 2.61, creating an undue hardship; it also held the Rule neutral and generally applicable and rationally related to public-health interests.
The court granted dismissal with prejudice of Algarin’s remaining claims and denied leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VII/NYSHRL failure-to-accommodate claim survives	Algarin: H+H revoked an agreed accommodation and refused to re-grant weekly testing as a religious accommodation	H+H: Granting a testing accommodation would violate Section 2.61 and impose undue hardship	Dismissed — accommodating would violate Section 2.61, so undue hardship as a matter of law
Whether NYCHRL religious-discrimination claim survives	Algarin: NYCHRL is construed broadly; he should get accommodation	H+H: Even under liberal NYCHRL standard, exempting/testing would violate state rule and interfere with workplace safety	Dismissed — same undue-hardship/state-law conflict reasoning
Whether § 1983 Free Exercise claim survives	Algarin: Mandate as applied infringes his free exercise rights	H+H: The Rule is a neutral, generally applicable public-health regulation subject only to rational-basis review	Dismissed — Rule is neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to legitimate health interests
Whether dismissal should be with leave to amend	Algarin: (did not propose amendments)	H+H: Dismiss with prejudice	Dismissed with prejudice — plaintiff did not seek amendment and no basis shown to cure defects

We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F.4th 266 (2d Cir. 2021) (upholding Section 2.61 against Title VII and Free Exercise challenges and explaining accommodations must remove employees from Rule’s scope)
Emp. Div., Dep’t of Hum. Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral laws of general applicability not subject to strict scrutiny)
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (discussing individualized-exemption and general-applicability framework)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (state power to enact vaccine mandates to protect public health)
Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (1986) (employer’s obligation under Title VII to reasonably accommodate religious observance)
E.E.O.C. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) (pleading standards for discrimination claims)
Iqbal/Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
Zelnick v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., 464 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2006) (termination as adverse employment action)