Garland v. New York City Fire Department, 1:21-cv-06586

Background

In October 2021 DOHMH ordered all NYC employees to show proof of at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose by Oct. 29; employees who failed to do so were to be excluded from their worksite beginning Nov. 1.
FDNY issued notice (Oct. 21) informing employees of the Order and that requests for religious or medical exemptions had to be submitted by Oct. 27 to remain on pay status pending review.
Plaintiffs (FDNY officers, firefighters, EMTs) filed suit Nov. 24 seeking a TRO/preliminary injunction restoring payroll and prohibiting discipline without charges and a pre-deprivation hearing; many plaintiffs had accommodation requests pending but missed the Oct. 27 deadline and were placed on leave without pay (LWOP).
DC 37 negotiated an agreement with the City (DC 37 Agreement) giving some members extended deadlines and interim payroll/testing protections; Plaintiffs did not name the City or relevant unions as defendants initially.
The court found Plaintiffs failed to show a clear likelihood of success on the merits, that the process provided met constitutional minimums (notice, opportunity to seek accommodation, available grievance/arbitration and Article 78 remedies), and denied injunctive relief on grounds of insufficient irreparable harm and that the public interest and balance of equities favored the vaccine requirement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Necessary parties	FDNY-only defendants suffice	City and unions (UFA, UFOA, DC 37) are required parties	Plaintiffs failed to name necessary parties under Rule 19; City should have been named; unions may be necessary if their agreements are challenged
Standing to challenge DC 37 Agreement	DC 37 plaintiffs can challenge the Agreement that affects their status	Union members generally lack standing to enforce CBA against employer	Court: union members ordinarily lack direct standing to enforce CBA; even if standing existed, PI standard not met
Statutory process (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §15-113)	FDNY violated statute by not proffering charges and providing pre-deprivation hearings	Termination here is for failure to meet a qualification of employment, not discipline under §15-113, so §15-113 is inapplicable	Held: §15-113 procedures do not apply to disqualification-based removals; statutory claim fails
Constitutional procedural due process	Plaintiffs were deprived of property (pay/employment) without constitutionally adequate process	FDNY provided notice, a pre-deprivation opportunity to seek accommodation, and post-deprivation remedies (grievance/arbitration, appeals, Article 78); many had access to CBA procedures	Held: Process met constitutional minimum (Loudermill notice + opportunity to respond; post-deprivation remedies adequate); no clear likelihood of success on due process claim
Irreparable harm; delay; public interest	Loss of pay and employment is irreparable; injunction required	Loss of income is compensable; Plaintiffs delayed seeking relief; public health and safety favor vaccine mandate	Held: Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm (monetary remedies, back pay available); unreasonable delay undermines urgency; balance of equities and public interest weigh against injunction

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (establishes preliminary injunction standard)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to respond required by due process)
O'Connor v. Pierson, 426 F.3d 187 (2d Cir.) (framework for public-employee property interest and process analysis)
Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm't, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir.) (mandatory injunction requires clear or substantial showing of likelihood of success)
Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (same heightened standard for mandatory injunctions)
Adams v. Suozzi, 517 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.) (grievance/arbitration procedures can provide constitutionally adequate process)
Narumanchi v. Bd. of Trustees, 850 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.) (availability of CBA grievance bars procedural due process claim when procedures are adequate)
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (loss of employment and income are generally reparable by money damages)
JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir.) (irreparable harm defined as harm not redressable by money damages)
Tooly v. Schwaller, 919 F.3d 165 (2d Cir.) (placement on unpaid leave constitutes deprivation of property interest)