Addonizio v. Nuvance Health

Background

Alicia Addonizio worked as a Patient Care Technician at Putnam Hospital Center until October 18, 2021. She alleged that her Christian beliefs prevented her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of her opposition to abortion and her belief that fetal cells were used to develop and test the vaccines.

New York’s Department of Health had issued an emergency rule requiring covered health-care entities to require covered personnel to become fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Addonizio requested a religious exemption that would have allowed her to remain unvaccinated while wearing a mask, socially distancing, and undergoing weekly testing. Putnam and Nuvance denied the request, placed her on administrative leave, and gave her additional opportunities to comply with the vaccination policy. After she continued to decline vaccination, they terminated her employment.

Addonizio filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued a notice of the right to sue through its online portal on September 24, 2022. Addonizio filed this lawsuit on February 24, 2023.

Claims and arguments

Addonizio asserted religious-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Title VII claims were untimely and that none of the discrimination or retaliation claims was adequately supported by the allegations.

Title VII timing

The court held that the Title VII claims were untimely. A lawsuit under Title VII generally must be filed within 90 days after receipt of the EEOC’s notice of the right to sue. Even applying a three-day period presumed for mailing, the court calculated that Addonizio had to file by December 26, 2022. She filed on February 24, 2023.

The court rejected counsel’s explanation that a technical problem with the EEOC portal prevented timely filing. The court found that counsel had received instructions for accessing the portal and could have contacted the EEOC investigator sooner. It concluded that the communications showed a failure to monitor the charge’s status, not a basis for extending the filing period.

Religious-discrimination claims

The court also reached the substance of the religious-discrimination claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. It found that Addonizio had alleged enough facts to make an initial showing: she alleged a sincere religious belief conflicting with the vaccination requirement, informed the defendants of that belief, and was terminated for not complying with the requirement.

The court nevertheless held that the requested accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship. Because Addonizio worked as a Patient Care Technician, the court determined that she fell within the state vaccination rule’s definition of covered personnel. The requested accommodation would have allowed her to continue in the same role without vaccination, which the court concluded would have required the defendants to violate the state rule and exposed them to possible legal, accreditation, financial, and litigation consequences.

The court therefore dismissed Counts I and III, the religious-discrimination claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, with prejudice.

Retaliation claims

The court dismissed Counts II and IV, the retaliation claims. Addonizio identified two alleged protected activities: requesting a religious accommodation and telling human resources on October 8, 2021, that she believed she was being treated differently because of her religious beliefs.

The court held that the accommodation request could not itself establish retaliation because the defendants’ failure to grant the request supported only a failure-to-accommodate theory. It also found no causal connection between Addonizio’s October 8 statement and her termination. The defendants had already announced the vaccination policy and informed her on October 4 that she would be terminated if she did not comply by October 8. The court concluded that she was terminated for refusing vaccination, not for engaging in protected activity.

Disposition

Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and denied any open motions as moot.