CompassCare v. Hochul
125 F.4th 49
2d Cir.2025Background
- CompassCare, NIFLA, and First Bible are religious and pro-life organizations challenging the constitutionality of New York Labor Law Section 203-e, which prohibits employment discrimination based on reproductive health decision-making.
- Plaintiffs allege the law violates their First Amendment rights to expressive association, free speech, and free exercise of religion.
- The District Court dismissed most of Plaintiffs' claims but issued a permanent injunction against the law's "Notice Provision," which required certain employers to inform employees of their rights under the Act in employee handbooks.
- The Second Circuit decided Slattery v. Hochul while the appeal was pending, holding that a nonprofit can have an expressive-association claim if a law forces it to employ individuals acting against its mission.
- In light of Slattery, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s dismissal of the expressive-association claim, vacated summary judgment on the Notice Provision, and remanded for further proceedings. It affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs’ free speech and free exercise claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expressive Association (forced employment) | The Act compels hiring/retention contrary to their mission | Employers have lesser/no associative rights with employees | Dismissal vacated; remanded to assess if Plaintiffs plausibly allege a claim |
| Notice Provision (compelled speech) | Notice compels religious/political disagreement in handbook | It's a neutral, factual workplace disclosure | Summary judgment and injunction vacated; rational basis review applies |
| Free Speech | Firing/hiring is expressive conduct protected by 1A | Employment decisions lack sufficient expressive element | District Court's dismissal affirmed |
| Free Exercise | Act burdens religious practice through forced employment | Law is neutral, applies to all employers | District Court's dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (first recognized freedom of expressive association under First Amendment)
- Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (set standard for when antidiscrimination laws violate expressive association)
- Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984) (Title VII not trumped by associational rights in law firm employment)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (compelled speech violates First Amendment)
- Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n for the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (standards for analyzing compelled speech claims)
- Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (applies rational basis to factual, uncontroversial commercial disclosures)
- West Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (government cannot compel expression of certain beliefs)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (accommodation of speech does not equal compelled speech)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (defining expressive conduct under the First Amendment)
- Cent. Rabbinical Cong. of U.S. & Canada v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 763 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014) (requirements for free exercise claims against neutral, generally applicable laws)