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

Aug 6, 2025

Seeking a religious exemption from complying with employer's mandate that the employee obtain the COVID-19 vaccine

The petitioner [Applicant] for unemployment insurance benefits was notified by his Employer that, to continue his employment, he was required to obtain the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by a certain date pursuant to directives of the Mayor of the City of New York and the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Claimant submitted a written reasonable accommodation request from the vaccination requirement for religious reasons, and he continued to work during the pendency of his request. Ultimately Employer denied Claimant's request for an exemption, finding that Claimant failed to provided sufficient religious documentation, that Claimant failed to explain how religious tenets conflict with the vaccination requirement and that he had no history of vaccination/medication refusals. Claimant subsequen0lty filed for retirement and stopped working on the last day he could submit verification of vaccination. Claimant then applied for unemployment insurance benefits. 

The Department of Labor subsequently issued an initial determination finding, among other things, that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause. Claimant appealed and an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] sustained that portion of the Department's initial determination disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that Claimant voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause.

Upon administrative review of the ALJ's findings and decision, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board remanded the matter and directed Claimant to provide testimony and other evidence to establish the relevant doctrines of his religious beliefs, whether and how he practices those beliefs, whether those beliefs impact his decision to receive other vaccinations and/or to seek other medical treatment, and whether Claimant's decision not to be vaccinated was based upon safety concerns.

Claimant, however, failed to make such a showing at the remand hearings and the Board affirmed the disqualification of Claimant from receiving benefits, concluding that Claimant failed to demonstrate that his noncompliance with the COVID-19 vaccination mandate was rooted in a sincerely held religious belief and that his voluntary separation from his employment was therefore without good cause.

Claimant appealed the Board's affirming the administrative decision disqualifying him  from receiving unemployment insurance benefits based on a finding that Claimant had "separated from employment without good cause. The Appellate Divisions sustained the Board's ruling.

The Appellate Division ruled that, under these circumstances, and deferring to the Board's credibility assessments and the inferences to be drawn from Claimant's testimony and submissions, substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Claimant's noncompliance with the Employer's mandate was not based upon a sincerely held religious belief and that, as a consequence, Claimant's separation from his employment was without good cause.

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



NYPPL Publisher 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.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case 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.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com