Plaintiff's cause of action alleging unlawful discrimination trigged by requiring all employees of the City of New York to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination dismissed

Plaintiff in this action sought to recover certain damages, alleging he had suffered employment discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL] and the New York City Human Rights Law [NYCHRL] as the result of the Defendants "intentional tort of forcing unwanted medical care on [the Plaintiff]" as the result of New York City's Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene requiring all City employees, among others, to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. 

Supreme Court granted the motion of the City of New York, New York City Police Department [NYPD], the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and others [Defendants] to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, noting that both the "NYSHRL and NYCHRL prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of religion", observed that Plaintiff's "complaint's conclusory assertions that the [Defendants] discriminated against the [Plaintiff] based on religion were unsupported by sufficient factual allegations to state a cause of action under either the NYCHRL or the NYSHRL". 

Further, opined the Appellate Division, Plaintiff's "complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the NYCHRL 'required a more robust or individualized dialogue than the process he received'." 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court "properly granted that branch of the [Defendants'] motion to dismiss the causes of action alleging violations of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL and "for aiding and abetting violations of those statutes insofar as asserted against them".

Further, the Appellate Division held that:

1. As the vaccine mandate was rescinded in February 2023, the cause of action seeking certain declaratory relief regarding the [Defendants'] "policy and practice" with respect to "religious accommodations to [the Defendants'] vaccine policies," is academic; 

2. The exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable here and Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Defendants'] motion to dismiss the cause of action seeking "certain declaratory relief insofar as asserted against them";

3. Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's cause of action alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the New York Constitution insofar as asserted against them "as the Plaintiff has no private right of action to recover damages for violations of the New York State Constitution, since the alleged wrongs could be redressed by alternative remedies, including those pursued under the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL in this action"; and

4. Failure to comply with a statutory notice of claim requirement is a ground for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action and in this instance "the notice of claim failed to include any allegations relating to these causes of action". 

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