Kane v. de Blasio, 575 F.Supp.3d 435

Background

Two consolidated suits by DOE employees challenged NYC’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds (Kane v. de Blasio, Keil v. City of New York).
District court initially denied preliminary relief; the Second Circuit vacated that denial, ordered citywide reconsideration by a central panel, and entered an injunction during reconsideration.
The Citywide (Reasonable Accommodation Appeals) Panel conducted reconsideration and denied most named plaintiffs’ requests; the Second Circuit’s injunction expired once reconsideration concluded.
Plaintiffs then moved in district court for a preliminary injunction (to enjoin enforcement pending litigation), provisional class certification of all DOE employees claiming religious objections, and immediate reinstatement/backpay.
The City opposed; the district court lifted the stay, reviewed the record (noting limited material about the Panel’s process), and denied injunctive relief and provisional class certification as premature.
The district court consolidated the two cases, designated 21-CV-7863 as lead, and denied reinstatement orders for plaintiffs and proposed class members.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a preliminary injunction should enjoin enforcement of the vaccine mandate pending litigation	Plaintiffs: suspension without pay, loss of benefits, and alleged First Amendment injury constitute irreparable harm justifying injunctive relief	City: harms are economic and compensable by money damages; Second Circuit-required reconsideration occurred	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; economic losses are reparable
Likelihood of success on the merits of free-exercise/as-applied challenge to mandate and Panel process	Plaintiffs: Citywide Panel and arbitration criteria were biased and unconstitutional as applied	City: Panel reconsidered under Title VII/NY/N.Y.C. human-rights standards; mandate is rational public-health policy	Denied — plaintiffs not likely to prevail; rational-basis review applies; mandate is rational
Reinstatement/backpay pending resolution	Plaintiffs: request immediate reinstatement to pre-mandate positions	City: no basis for reinstatement without injunction; reconsideration concluded	Denied — no injunction basis; economic harms remedy insufficient for reinstatement
Provisional class certification of all DOE employees asserting religious objections	Plaintiffs: seek provisional class pending briefing	City: class certification is premature; operative complaints lack class allegations and factual basis re: Panel	Denied without prejudice — premature; no operative class pleading or fully briefed motion
Consolidation of the two cases	Plaintiffs and City largely agreed consolidation appropriate	Same	Granted — cases consolidated under 21-CV-7863

Key Cases Cited

Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm is a critical prerequisite for a preliminary injunction)
Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 409 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2005) (where an adequate legal remedy exists, injunctions are disfavored)
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (economic harms from employment actions are ordinarily reparable)
Savage v. Gorski, 850 F.2d 64 (2d Cir. 1988) (reinstatement and money damages can render plaintiffs whole for employment-related losses)
We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F.4th 266 (2d Cir.) (economic injury typically not grounds for injunction; clarified court approach to preliminary relief)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (pandemic-era Free Exercise jurisprudence where direct prohibitions on worship were found to cause irreparable harm)
Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (Free Exercise protection for in-person worship during the pandemic)
In re Petrobras Sec., 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017) (Rule 23 class-certification standards)
Capstone Logistics Holdings, Inc. v. Navarrete, [citation="736 F. App'x 25"] (2d Cir. 2018) (standards for preliminary injunction)
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) (sincerity of religious beliefs is a factual question)