Decisions have been handed down in the past few days in several cases in which employees who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate have sued:
In Dicapua v. City of New York, (Richmond Cty. NY Sup. Ct., Sept 18, 2923), 16 employees of the Department of Education brought suit. A New York state trial court held that ten of the employees should have been granted a religious exemption, saying in part:
This Court sees no rational basis for not allowing unvaccinated classroom teachers in amongst an admitted population of primarily unvaccinated students.
In Mora v. New York State Unified Court System, (SD NY, Sept. 19, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by a Poughkeepsie City Court Judge, saying in part:
Here, the Vaccine Mandate has been repealed, and plaintiff has been reinstated to his full in-person duties. Therefore, plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law, or a need for prospective relief...
Damage claims were dismissed in part on the basis of 11th Amendment immunity and in part because Title VII does not apply to government appointees on the policymaking level. His Free Exercise claim was denied because the vaccine mandate was a neutral, generally applicable rule. Retaliation and equal protection claims were also rejected.
In Trusov v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 20, 2023), an Oregon federal district court dismissed some of the claims brought by a registered nurse who was denied a religious accommodation, and deferred consideration of another of her claims. The court said in part:
Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s First Claim, alleging religious discrimination in employment, the Court finds that OHSU’s arguments about undue hardship must await a motion for summary judgment, at which time the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings and, if necessary, motions to exclude expert testimony. Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s second claim brought under § 1983 against the individual Defendants, the Court dismisses that claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Regarding, Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s request for prospective declaratory relief, the Court dismisses that request for lack of standing.
In Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 19, 2023), an Oregon federal district court rejected claims brought by a research laboratory manager who was denied a religious exemption as well as a medical exemption. The court said in part:
In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim fails because OHSU offered to accommodate Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by offering an accommodation—masking—to which Plaintiff has alleged no objection based on religion....
Plaintiff’s assertion that masking would not promote safety is a secular objection, not a religious one. That objection, therefore, does not establish that the offered accommodation to her religious objection was not reasonable for purposes of her claim of religious discrimination.
Other of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed on qualified immunity and standing grounds.
