In August 2021, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene issued an order requiring all DOE employees to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 by September 27, 2021. In response, the unions sought to negotiate the terms of the Vaccine Mandate to limit its impact on their members.
Those negotiations were unsuccessful and DOE and two of the unions – the United Federation of Teachers and the Council of Supervisors and Administrators – agreed to enter into binding arbitration to resolve the issues. The Arbitrator, Martin Scheinman, issued two "largely identical arbitration awards". The remaining union – District Council 37 – reached an agreement with the DOE in early October that mirrored Scheinman’s previous arbitration awards. Thus, all Plaintiffs “were subject to similar terms regarding the Vaccine Mandate procedures.”
Plaintiffs, contending that DOE suspended and terminated their employment “without due process,” appealed the federal district court's decision dismissing their 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims. Citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, the Circuit Court sustained the district court's decision, noting "the repetition of a legal conclusion does not state a claim" as "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”
In addition, Plaintiffs had asked the Circuit Court to grant them leave to amend their complaint. The district court had denied their request for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Circuit Court said "Plaintiffs present no argument at all as to why that decision [by the district court] was wrong". Instead, opined the Circuit Court, Plaintiffs’ request merely “indicate[s] a desire to amend” while failing “to make a showing that the complaint’s defects can be cured.” The Circuit Court denied the Plaintiffs' request.
The Circuit Court decision opines that "Plaintiffs clearly disagree with their unions’ decisions to arbitrate the implementation of the Vaccine Mandate," a decision they insist exceeded the authority of the unions and DOE under state law. But, observed the Circuit Court, "that it is not enough to establish a federal procedural due process violation. Because plaintiffs have presented no facts that would call into question the adequacy of the pre- and post-deprivation process afforded them, their federal due process claims – including their derivative conspiracy claims and class claims – must be dismissed."
As to any "state-law claims" raised by Plaintiffs, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and dismiss them without prejudice.
* Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the federal district court erred by dismissing their claims against the defendants for violating their Due Process rights by adopting procedures for enforcing the Vaccine Mandate that resulted in the suspension and termination of DOE employees who refused to be vaccinated.
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.