The New York City Uniformed Firefighters Association, et. al. [Petitioners] initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding contending the New York City Fire Department's [NYFD] "reasonable accommodation process related to the Citywide vaccine mandate" did not provide for "engaging in cooperative dialogue or providing reasons for exemption denials". Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and the Association appealed the Supreme Court's decision.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding:
1. The Association did not "established that the City's process for resolving requests for accommodations to the vaccine mandate fell short of the requirements" of either the City Human Rights Law or the State [Human Rights Law];
2. Petitioners were informed about how to apply for religious and medical accommodations and how to appeal denials, and they availed themselves of this process;
3. FDNY explained why their applications did not qualify for an accommodation, and the parties further engaged in the administrative appeals process;
4. FDNY also provided evidence that it received "over 2,000 religious and medical accommodation requests that needed to be resolved under a constrained timeline during an evolving public health emergency"; and
5. Under the circumstances, Petitioners have not established that New York City's Human Rights Law "required a more robust or individualized dialogue than the process they received."
Citing Matter of Ryskiejko v City of New York, 232 AD3d 432 and other decisions, the Appellate Division rejected the Petitioners' argument that a summary dispensation [was] warranted because an order dated August 1, 2022 held that Petitioners "had a likelihood of success on the merits concerning the alleged failure to engage in cooperative dialogue" in that such an argument ignored an Appellate Division precedent in which the procedures being challenged in the instant proceeding were sustained.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "Nor do we agree with [Petitioners] that the denials by the FDNY finding both insufficient proof and undue hardship and, later, the denials of their administrative appeals by the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel, provided insufficient explanations," citing Matter of Bryan, 222 AD3d at 473; Matter of Lee v City of New York, 221 AD3d 505 at 506.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Divisions decision posted on the Internet.
N.B. See, also, Goolsby v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01189, decided by the Appellate Division and posted on the Internet on March 4, 2025