125 F.4th 319
2d Cir.2024Background
- In August 2021, NYC’s Department of Education required all in-person staff, employees, and contractors to be vaccinated for COVID-19.
- Plaintiffs, primarily public sector employees, challenged the mandate under the First Amendment, both facially and as applied, following prior litigation and a remand in Kane v. De Blasio.
- After initial legal challenges, the city revised its exemption process to use a centralized panel (Citywide Panel) that applied Title VII standards for religious accommodations.
- Plaintiffs sought reinstatement, backpay, and invalidation of the vaccination mandate, arguing both general unconstitutionality and defects in the exemption process.
- District courts denied preliminary injunctions and dismissed the complaints; most employees had already been terminated or resigned by the time of these motions.
- NYC rescinded the mandate in February 2023, raising mootness issues; plaintiffs appealed consolidated cases to the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recission of Mandate | Mandate violates rights and needs to be rescinded | Mandate has been rescinded; case moot | Moot; court dismissed request as no live issue |
| Reinstatement & Backpay | Termination caused irreparable harm and violates First Amendment | No ongoing injury; harm is compensable and does not meet irreparable standard | No irreparable harm post-termination; injunctive relief (reinstatement/backpay) denied |
| Facial Validity (Free Exercise/Establishment) | Mandate and process not neutral or generally applicable; religious animus present | Policy is religion-neutral, generally applicable, and no evidence of animus | Facial challenges dismissed; policy upheld as neutral and generally applicable |
| As-Applied Religious Exemption Denial | Denials violated rights as some beliefs deemed not religious or too personal | Denials based on undue hardship or lack of sincerity/religious nature | Most as-applied challenges dismissed; remanded only for two plaintiffs with plausible claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (facially neutral laws of general applicability typically do not violate Free Exercise)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (even a facially neutral law may violate neutrality principle if it targets religious conduct)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (applies First Amendment religious protections to the states)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (defines undue hardship under Title VII accommodations)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (Establishment Clause prohibits laws advancing or inhibiting religion)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (unconstitutional to show denominational preference under Establishment Clause)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U.S. 617 (government cannot act with hostility toward religious beliefs)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)