This consolidated appeal involves New York City public school employees challenging the city's COVID-19 vaccination mandate for staff working in person. The mandate was instituted in August 2021 following the FDA's full approval of the vaccine. The plaintiffs, represented by New Yorkers for Religious Liberty, Inc., challenged the mandate both facially and as applied, arguing it violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The litigation has a complex procedural history, including a prior Second Circuit decision in Kane v. De Blasio (Kane I) which found the mandate neutral but remanded the religious exemption process because the original arbitration standards improperly denied exemptions for personal or political objections. Following Kane I, the City established a Citywide Panel to review accommodation requests. The district courts subsequently dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints, finding the mandate constitutional and the plaintiffs' as-applied claims insufficient. The Second Circuit consolidated the appeals to address the denial of preliminary injunctions and the dismissal of the complaints on the merits.
The court addressed three primary issues: the request for rescission of the mandate, the request for reinstatement and backpay, and the dismissal of the facial and as-applied challenges. First, the court dismissed the request to rescind the mandate as moot because the City officially rescinded the policy in February 2023, and there was no evidence of a reasonable expectation that it would be reinstated. Second, regarding reinstatement and backpay, the court held that terminated employees could not demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for a preliminary injunction. The court reiterated that loss of employment is generally compensable and does not constitute irreparable harm unless there is a threat of permanent discharge, which did not apply to those already terminated. Third, the court affirmed the dismissal of facial challenges. Under the Free Exercise Clause, the mandate remains neutral and generally applicable per Kane I. Under the Establishment Clause, the plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts showing the Citywide Panel preferred certain religions or was infected with animus; conclusory allegations regarding past statements by city officials were insufficient. Finally, the court analyzed the as-applied challenges. It affirmed the dismissal of claims for six plaintiffs who were denied accommodations based on 'undue hardship' because they failed to allege facts contradicting the finding that their unvaccinated presence posed a risk to students. However, the court vacated the dismissal for Natasha Solon and Heather Clark. Solon plausibly alleged her initial denial was based on the unconstitutional Arbitration Award Standards that rejected personal religious beliefs. Clark plausibly alleged her denial was based on the Panel characterizing her beliefs as too idiosyncratic to be religious, rather than assessing their sincerity. The court emphasized that while courts do not judge the verity of beliefs, they cannot reject them because they are personal or idiosyncratic.
The decision leaves the facial constitutionality of New York City's vaccine mandate intact for public school employees. However, it opens the door for Natasha Solon and Heather Clark to pursue their claims for backpay and damages on remand. The district court must now evaluate whether the City's exemption process provided adequate accommodations for these two plaintiffs without imposing an undue burden on their First Amendment rights. The ruling clarifies that while 'undue hardship' is a valid defense for employers, denials based on the nature of a belief (e.g., 'too personal' or 'idiosyncratic') rather than its sincerity or the hardship of accommodation are likely unconstitutional.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download