The New York City Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel [Panel] denied an Educator's request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for employees of the New York City Department of Education [DOE]. Supreme Court dismissed Educator's CPLR Article 78 petition appealing the Panel's decision, which ruling was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, without costs.
The Appellate Division opined that the denial of Educator's request for a religious exemption and reasonable accommodations for her job as a school teacher was not arbitrary and capricious, noting DOE's argument that "allowing [Educator] to teach remotely while the DOE was resuming in-person instruction, would impose an undue hardship on the [DOE]".
The DOE's "Position Statement" explained that accommodating Educator would result in her being unable to perform her essential functions as a schoolteacher and given that more than 3,300 DOE employees had requested religious exemptions, "granting an exemption to the employees would impose on the DOE significant costs and operational difficulties associated with creating alternative assignments for the exempted employees, and retaining and hiring additional staff to perform the exempted employees' essential job functions". This, said the Appellate Division, "was a rational basis for the denial of [Educator's] request."
Addressing a procedural matter, the Appellate Division observing the fact DOE's Position Statement was "unsigned and undated hearsay", said "[h]earsay evidence can be the basis for an administrative determination", citing Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741, and "this Court need not limit our review to the language in the Citywide Panel's decision, as the Panel noted that it had reviewed the DOE's determination as well as the documentation submitted to the agency, and that it based its decision on that review."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
N.B. A decision by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Candice D'Cunha v Northwell Health Systems, [23-476-cv], addresses alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) when Northwell refused to accommodate D'Cunha's requests for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption and terminated her employment. Click HERE to access the D'Cunha decision posted on the Internet.