17 F.4th 368
2d Cir.2021Background
- Two consolidated appeals (We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul and Dr. A. v. Hochul) challenging New York’s emergency healthcare-worker COVID-19 vaccine rule (10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.61).
- Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions to prevent enforcement of the Rule against employees asserting religious objections.
- The Second Circuit panel clarified its earlier opinion: Section 2.61 "on its face" does not bar an employer from providing a reasonable religious accommodation that removes an employee from the Rule’s definition of "personnel." Such an accommodation could permit an employee to remain unvaccinated while employed, if it actually removes them from the Rule’s scope.
- The court emphasized that Title VII does not compel employers to grant any particular accommodation—employers need not provide the plaintiffs’ preferred blanket exemption, especially if the accommodation would impose undue hardship.
- The district court’s preliminary injunction in Dr. A. was vacated; the State’s emergency Rule is presently in effect requiring vaccination of covered "personnel."
- The panel stressed its decision addressed only the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits and was not a definitive adjudication of the merits; further proceedings in these matters are referred to this panel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2.61 forbids employers from granting religious accommodations that allow unvaccinated employees to continue working in roles that could expose others | Plaintiffs: Title VII requires an accommodation permitting continued work despite vaccination objection | State: § 2.61 requires covered "personnel" to be vaccinated; Rule governs personnel status | Court: § 2.61 does not on its face bar an employer from reasonably accommodating employees by removing them from the Rule’s "personnel" scope; but if an employee remains "personnel," vaccination is required |
| Whether Title VII requires employers to provide the specific religious accommodation plaintiffs seek (blanket exemption) | Plaintiffs: Employer must provide religious exemption to allow continued work | State: Title VII does not mandate the employee’s preferred accommodation, especially if it causes undue hardship | Court: Title VII does not require employers to grant the preferred blanket exemption; undue-hardship defense applies |
| Whether the district court’s preliminary injunction should remain in place | Plaintiffs: Injunctive relief still necessary for religious objectors | State: Injunction not justified; Rule can be enforced; reasonable accommodations are possible | Court: Preliminary injunction vacated; Rule in effect |
| Whether this panel’s opinion resolves the merits of plaintiffs’ claims | Plaintiffs: Opinion indicates their claims succeed | State: Opinion limited to preliminary-injunction standard | Court: Opinion addressed only likelihood of success, not final merits; case returned for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- None (the panel’s clarification relied primarily on the text of the State emergency Rule, Title VII framework, and the panel’s earlier opinion, which was cited in non‑reported form).