O'Leary v. The New York City Department of Investigation

Background

Matthew O’Leary alleged that he is a Roman Catholic who believes that the body is a sacred gift from God and opposes medical treatment connected in any way to aborted fetal cells. He worked for the New York City Department of Investigation as an investigator in its Law Enforcement Technology, Digital Forensic Unit.

In October 2021, New York City required all City employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and to provide proof of a first dose by October 29, 2021. O’Leary requested a religious exemption, stating that vaccination would conflict with his religious opposition to abortion and to substances connected to fetal cell lines. The Department of Investigation denied the request, and the Citywide Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel denied his appeal. O’Leary was placed on leave without pay in December 2021 and terminated in February 2022.

In June 2022, the City offered to reinstate him if he became fully vaccinated. The offer did not expressly mention the City’s exemption procedure. O’Leary did not accept the offer because of his religious beliefs. He later filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a notice allowing him to sue. His amended complaint asserted two claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—wrongful termination and failure to accommodate—and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the mandate violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

Title VII exhaustion ruling

Title VII generally requires a person to file a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the challenged employment action before bringing a federal lawsuit. The court treated the denial of O’Leary’s exemption request, the denial of his appeal, his termination, and the reinstatement offer as separate, discrete acts. It rejected O’Leary’s argument that these events formed a continuing violation that extended the filing deadline.

Because O’Leary filed his charge 434 days after the exemption denial, 402 days after the appeal denial, and 349 days after his termination, the court held that the Title VII claims based on those three events were untimely and dismissed them.

Title VII claim concerning reinstatement

The court considered the reinstatement-offer claim on the merits. It held that an offer allowing a formally terminated employee to return to the employee’s former position did not constitute a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment. The court also held that O’Leary had not alleged that he timely sought a religious accommodation in response to the reinstatement offer. His earlier accommodation request could not supply that basis because it had already been rejected and was time-barred.

The court therefore dismissed all of O’Leary’s Title VII claims.

First Amendment Free Exercise claim

O’Leary brought an as-applied challenge, meaning he argued that the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional as applied to him, rather than challenging the mandate on its face. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that a parallel City vaccine mandate was neutral and generally applicable, meaning it applied broadly without targeting religious conduct. A neutral and generally applicable law ordinarily survives a Free Exercise challenge if it has a rational basis, or a reasonable connection to a legitimate governmental purpose.

The court distinguished a prior vaccine-mandate case in which religious exemption requests were evaluated by comparing an applicant’s beliefs with the publicly expressed views of another religious leader. O’Leary did not allege that his beliefs were evaluated in that way. Instead, the allegations showed that officials questioned him about his own beliefs, religious participation, objections to the mandate, and other medications. The court held that such inquiries could permissibly assess whether a claimed religious belief was sincerely held.

The court also rejected O’Leary’s argument that the exemption process was not generally applicable because officials had discretion and a coworker allegedly received an exemption. It found those allegations speculative and insufficient to show that secular conduct was favored over religious conduct. The court concluded that the mandate was subject to rational-basis review and satisfied that standard.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the City’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case. The order directed the Clerk of Court to close the pending motion.