19 F.4th 152
2d Cir.2021Background
- In August 2021 NYC issued a Vaccine Mandate requiring DOE employees and contractors who work in-person in schools/buildings to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
- The UFT arbitration award established an alternative accommodations process requiring written documentation from a religious official and listing criteria for denial (e.g., public support for vaccines by a religious leader, "personal" objections).
- Fifteen DOE teachers/administrators sought religious accommodations, were denied under the arbitration procedures, and filed two suits seeking preliminary injunctions.
- The district court denied preliminary relief; a Second Circuit motions panel (with NYC’s consent) ordered interim relief directing reconsideration of claims by a central citywide panel applying Title VII standards.
- The merits panel (Second Circuit) held the Vaccine Mandate is not facially unconstitutional but found the arbitration accommodation procedures were likely unconstitutional as applied, continued the motions-panel interim relief, vacated the district court orders, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Facial Free-Exercise challenge to the Vaccine Mandate | Mandate is non-neutral/not generally applicable and therefore triggers strict scrutiny | Mandate is facially neutral, generally applicable to an employment class, and survives rational-basis review | Rejected plaintiffs’ facial challenge; Mandate is neutral/generally applicable and rational-basis review applies; Mandate survives at this stage |
| 2. As-applied challenge to arbitration accommodation procedures | Arbitration standards were biased (deny based on religious leaders’ public statements, require clergy letters), invited individualized judgments, and violated Free Exercise | City largely conceded the arbitration criteria were constitutionally suspect and offered no meaningful defense | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on as-applied Free Exercise claim: procedures were not neutral or generally applicable; strict scrutiny applies and procedures failed narrow-tailoring |
| 3. Irreparable harm and scope of preliminary relief (reinstatement/backpay) | Denial of accommodation and threat of termination causes irreparable First Amendment injury, entitling plaintiffs to reinstatement and backpay | Economic harms (leave without pay) are reparable; reinstatement/backpay not required pending reconsideration | Plaintiffs showed irreparable harm sufficient to obtain interim relief (stay of termination and prompt reconsideration) but not to justify immediate reinstatement or pre-decision backpay |
| 4. Nationwide/classwide relief and remedial scope | Plaintiffs sought broad injunctive relief extending to similarly situated nonparties | Relief should be limited to named plaintiffs; City is already offering reconsideration broadly; class relief requires certification | Denied sweeping relief to nonparties; injunction limited to named plaintiffs pending remand; district court may consider class issues on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws get rational-basis review)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religious conduct are not neutral)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (COVID-19 restrictions on religious exercise analyzed under strict scrutiny where not neutral)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (analysis of neutrality and general applicability in Free Exercise context)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (government actions hostile to religion violate Free Exercise)
- Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989) (courts cannot question centrality or validity of religious beliefs)
- Frazee v. Illinois Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 489 U.S. 829 (1989) (sincerity of individual religious belief suffices regardless of sect consensus)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (comparability test for secular vs. religious treatment under Free Exercise)
- Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (preliminary-injunction framework for pandemic restrictions)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (economic harm from employment actions is typically reparable; reinstatement/backpay affect irreparable-harm analysis)
- Cent. Rabbinical Cong. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 763 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014) (Free Exercise protects abstention from physical acts that constitute religious exercise)