ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

November 08, 2024

The anatomy of the denial of Plaintiff's request for a religious exemption from an employer's COVID-19 vaccination requirement

Plaintiff challenged the determination of the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel's [Panel] denying Plaintiff's request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for New York City employees and asked Supreme Court to direct the reinstatement of Petitioner's employment. Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition in part and annulled the challenged determination as arbitrary and capricious.

The Appellate Division unanimously modified the Supreme Court's ruling "on the law and facts" and denied Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition "in its entirety", without costs.

The Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff "failed to demonstrate that the denial of her application [for a religious exemption] was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law", finding that the Panel had provided a sufficient explanation for its decision, stating that its decision "was based on the reasoning set forth in the denial letter from respondent New York City Police Department (NYPD)." That denial letter, said the court, in turn, found that Plaintiff's application contained "a generic statement that does not support [her] request," relied on false information or misinformation, "failed to explain how [her] religious tenets conflict with the vaccine requirement," and "had no demonstrated history of refusing medications or vaccines".

Concluding that Supreme Court "should not have rejected either the information supplied in the verified answer or two affirmations submitted by respondents," the Appellate Division observed "[W]here, 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 Appellate Division also noted it "may consider such an affidavit even though it was not submitted during the administrative process", citing Matter of Marsteller, 217 AD3d at 544.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.


CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com