The Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court's decision rejecting Plaintiff's petition seeking a court order annulling the determination of the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel [Citywide Panel] denying Plaintiff's request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for employees of the New York City Department of Education [DOE].
The Citywide Panel denied Plaintiff's administrative appeal challenging the denial of his application for a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement, finding that:
[1] "Plaintiff failed to establish that his objection to receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines was based on a sincerely held religious belief; and
[2] "granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on DOE."
Citing Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543, the Appellate Division noted that Plaintiff:
[1] "had no demonstrated history of refusing medications or vaccines;
[2] "he admitted to receiving a certain vaccination required for him to attend college; and
[3] "he refused to answer a question about whether he had avoided any other vaccines or medications based on the same objection he raised to the COVID-19 vaccines."
The court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that DOE's "Position Statement" was unsigned and undated hearsay, noting "Generally, administrative proceedings need not conform to all of the ... evidentiary rules adhered to in judicial tribunals", citing Matter of Church of Scientology of N.Y. v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y., 120 AD2 376, nor need an agency "state with specificity its detailed analysis," or "point to any contemporaneously created record that demonstrates that it considered all relevant factors" or "or engage in a cooperative dialogue".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.