Chinchilla v. New York City Police Department

Background

Nancy Chinchilla alleged that she was a Pentecostal Christian whose religious beliefs led her to refuse all vaccinations for herself and her children. She worked for the New York City Police Department from 2004 to 2022, including in an administrative and teaching role at the Police Academy.

The City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate required City workers to receive a COVID-19 vaccine by October 29, 2021, but allowed workers to request reasonable accommodations. Chinchilla applied for a religious accommodation, explaining that she objected to COVID-19 vaccines because of their alleged connection to aborted fetal cell lines and because vaccination would conflict with her religious beliefs about abortion and the sanctity of her blood. The NYPD denied her request, and a citywide appeals panel later denied her appeal. She was told that she would be placed on unpaid leave and eventually terminated if she did not provide proof of vaccination. She used accrued leave and retired on April 13, 2022.

Claims and legal standard

Chinchilla’s First Amended Complaint asserted four claims: (1) failure to accommodate her religious beliefs under the New York State Human Rights Law; (2) failure to accommodate under the New York City Human Rights Law; (3) failure to engage in a cooperative discussion about an accommodation under the New York City Human Rights Law; and (4) violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Chinchilla’s favor.

Free Exercise claim

The court granted dismissal of the constitutional Free Exercise claim. Chinchilla challenged the way the City and the NYPD evaluated religious accommodation requests, rather than challenging the vaccine mandate itself. The court held that the complaint did not allege facts showing that the exemption procedures were nonneutral toward religion or applied inconsistently. The complaint also did not contain sufficient, nonconclusory allegations that hostility toward Chinchilla’s religious beliefs caused the denial of her request.

The court concluded that the procedures were subject to rational-basis review, a deferential standard requiring only a conceivable rational reason for the government’s action. It held that the defendants’ decision not to grant Chinchilla an exemption satisfied that standard and granted the motion to dismiss Claim Four.

State and city accommodation claims

The court denied dismissal of Chinchilla’s religious-accommodation claims against the City. It held that the complaint adequately alleged a religious belief conflicting with the vaccination requirement, notice to the employer through her accommodation application and supporting materials, and discipline or constructive discharge. The court treated the alleged choice between complying with the mandate and facing unpaid leave and termination as sufficient at the pleading stage, particularly because Chinchilla alleged that she retired to preserve her pension.

The defendants argued that allowing Chinchilla to remain unvaccinated while wearing a mask and taking regular COVID-19 tests would have caused an undue hardship. The court treated undue hardship as an affirmative defense and held that the complaint did not establish that defense on its face. Chinchilla alleged that other employees had been allowed to mask and test instead of receiving the vaccine, which, if true, could indicate that the proposed accommodation was feasible. The court therefore allowed Claims One and Two to proceed against the City, without deciding whether the proposed accommodation would ultimately be reasonable.

The court granted dismissal of Claims One and Two to the extent they were asserted against the NYPD. It held that the NYPD, as a city agency, is not a suable entity.

Cooperative-dialogue claim

The court granted dismissal of Claim Three. The New York City Human Rights Law requires an employer to engage in a good-faith written or oral discussion about an employee’s accommodation needs, possible accommodations, and the difficulties those accommodations could create. Relying on New York appellate decisions concerning the NYPD’s vaccine-accommodation process, the court held that the process Chinchilla used satisfied that requirement.

Disposition

The court stated that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Claims One and Two were dismissed as to the NYPD but not as to the City. Claims Three and Four were dismissed. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.