In response to a New York City employee's [Petitioner] challenge to the denial of his request for a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccinations the Appellate Division sustained the City's action, observing that:
1. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the City's determination was arbitrary and capricious or made in violation of lawful procedure;
2. Petitioner's application contained a "generic statement that does not support [his] request";
3. Petitioner "failed to explain how his religious tenets conflict with the vaccine requirement.'
The court's decision also noted that Petitioner's employer "found that [Petitioner] had no demonstrated history of refusing medications or vaccines.
Finding that the employer's decision "had a rational basis in the record", the Appellate Division declined to substitute its judgment for that of the employer's, citing Matter of Roberts v Gavin, 96 AD3d 669.
Addressing a procedural issue, the Appellate Division opined "where, as here, there was no administrative hearing, an agency may submit an official's affidavit to explain the information that was before the agency and the rationale for its decision" the court may consider such an affidavit even though it was not submitted during the administrative process [See Matter of Robins v New York City Off. of Chief Med. Examiner, 212 AD3d 541.
The Appellate Division also held that Petitioner did not established that the City's process for resolving requests for accommodations to the vaccine mandate fell short of the requirements of New York City's Human Rights Law.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.