Employee challenged her termination for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination requirement after her Employer denied her request for a religious exemption

Plaintiff was terminated from her position with New York State Unified Court System [Employer] as the result of her failure to comply with Employer's COVID-19 vaccination requirement after Employer denied her request for a religious exemption. 

Employee than sued Employer alleging Employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate her religion beliefs. 

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiff, holding that there was no genuine dispute that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of religious discrimination—resting in large part on statements made by the Employer during discovery—and that the Employer did not demonstrate that granting an accommodation would constitute an undue hardship.

Employer appealed, contending that the Federal District Court failed to modify the prima facie test for failure-to-accommodate religion claims in light of EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768.

The Second Circuit said that it agreed that Abercrombie abrogated the Second Circuit's earlier Title VII precedents. However, because the Federal District Court "improperly deemed statements in the discovery record to be judicial admissions" the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the matter "for further proceedings" consistent with its instant opinion.

Click HERE to access the opinion of Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, posted on the Internet.

New York State local government and school audits posted on the Internet on September 16, 2026.

On September 16, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were posted on the Internet.

                Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit report.

South Huntington Union Free School District – Credit Cards (Suffolk County) District officials did not ensure that credit card charges were authorized, supported, for valid district purposes or approved. As a result, the board and officials did not establish adequate oversight and internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that district credit cards were used appropriately and in the best interest of taxpayers. In addition, because the board did not ensure that all claims were reviewed and approved by the claims auditor prior to payment, the district faced an increased risk of paying for goods or services that did not serve a proper district purpose.

Village of Groton – Capital Project (Tompkins County) The village board did not competitively procure certain goods and services for the project. Although the project’s original construction contracts, totaling $3.7 million, were properly procured, the board subsequently procured $135,900 in goods and services without seeking competition in accordance with state law or the village’s procurement policy.

Beekmantown Central School District – Investment Program (Clinton County) Auditors determined that the district’s investments were legal, safe and liquid. However, district officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. For example, during the audit period, officials did not prepare any cash flow forecasts to estimate funds available for investment or solicit interest rate quotes from financial institutions. As a result, officials missed an opportunity for the district to realize additional revenues of more than $1 million.

Honeoye Central School District – Financial Management (Ontario County and Livingston County) The board and district officials did not effectively manage fund balance. Although the board and district officials generally maintained surplus fund balance within the statutory 4 percent limit, they did so by transferring surplus fund balance to reserves at, or after, year-end and maintaining $1.1 million excess fund balance in the debt service fund. As of June 30, 2025, two general fund reserves totaling $977,890 were not reasonably funded.

###

Concerning standing to sue in an educational setting.

Defending Education* is an association of parents, students, and concerned citizens that brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 challenging a set of student speech policies adopted by the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, a New York State School District, for alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 

Defending Education represented three of its parent-members whose children attend school in the Croton-Harmon School District and espouse social and political views that they wish to share but refrain from doing so because they feared their speech was prohibited by the School District’s policies. Defending Education brought suit in a Federal District Court seeking a preliminary injunction against the School District's enforcement of those policies. 

The District Court denied that motion and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction citing Aguayo v Richardson, 473 F.2d 1090 (2d Cir. 1973), in which the Second Circuit had held that "Associations lack standing to sue on behalf of their members for claims brought under §1983". Defending Education appealed the District Court’s decision to the Second Circuit but, acknowledging Aguayo, moved for summary affirmance, which the Second Circuit granted. 

Defending Education then petitioned for reconsideration of their cause of action en banc, asking the Second Circuit to overrule Aguayo and to remand the case to the District Court so that Defending Education could pursue its lawsuit against the School District. 

After circulating this opinion to all active members of the Second Circuit and receiving no objection, the Second Circuit overrule Aguayo’s holding "with respect to associational standing under §1983".  In its place, the Second Circuit adopted the rule outlined by the Supreme Court in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977), and adopted by its sister Circuits, which provides that a membership organization has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members under §1983 when:

(a) those members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right;

(b) the interests protected are germane to that organization’s purpose, and 

(c) the participation of individual members in the lawsuit is not necessary for the claim asserted or the relief requested. 

The Second Circuit than REVERSE the judgment of the Federal District Court and REMAND the matter for further proceedings in accordance with its instant ruling. 

* The Court pointed out that "Defending Education is an association of parents, students, and concerned citizens that brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 challenging a set of student speech policies adopted by the Croton-Harmon Union Free School District (“Croton-Harmon” or the “District”) in New York for alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

 

Don't miss the 2026 Women's Leadership Summit!

 

The Future is Chasing Us - Are You Ready to Lead it? To be held at the Joseph A. Floreano Rochester Riverside Convention Center Rochester, New York Thursday Sep 24, 2026 11:00 AM : 5:00 PM EDT The annual Women’s Leadership Summit will bring together women leaders in all phases of their careers throughout the Greater Rochester area. Influential leaders will come together for an afternoon of learning, conversation, career development, networking and more. During lunch, we will celebrate Rochester companies who are elevating, growing and supporting women leaders through the annual Elevating Women awards program. Buy Tickets Now!