Hasselriis v. The New York City Police Department
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-03862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hasselriis v. New York City Police Department, Judge Subramanian denied Defendants’ request to stay discovery until their anticipated motion to dismiss is filed.
Hasselriis and the defendants—the New York City Police Department and the City of New York—must proceed without the requested discovery stay unless the defendants later file and obtain an appropriate stay.
What happened
Hasselriis sued the New York City Police Department and the City of New York after the NYPD denied his request for a religious exemption from the City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. He alleges violations of the New York City Human Rights Law and the right to freely practice his religion.
The defendants asked the court to pause discovery while they prepared a motion to dismiss. They argued that Hasselriis’s claims could not succeed, and Hasselriis consented to the requested pause.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the request. The court said the defendants may file another motion to stay discovery after the case-management plan is in place and the motion to dismiss has been filed, if appropriate. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Hasselriis v. The New York City Police Department · No. 1:25-cv-03862
- Subramanian
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Hasselriis brought the action on May 8, 2025. The defendants’ counsel described him as a former NYPD police officer who retired on May 20, 2022, after the NYPD denied his request for a religious accommodation exempting him from the City of New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. According to the defendants’ description of the complaint, Hasselriis alleges that he appealed the denial but retired before the appeal was decided. He asserts a failure-to-accommodate claim under the New York City Human Rights Law and appears also to assert a claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Requested Discovery Stay
The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) while they prepared an anticipated motion to dismiss. They argued that the New York City Human Rights Law claim lacked merit because, in their view, Hasselriis retired before a final decision on his accommodation request and was not disciplined by his employer. They also argued that accommodating an unvaccinated public-facing police officer would create an undue hardship because of health and safety risks.
The defendants further argued that any Free Exercise Clause claim was barred by Second Circuit precedent holding that the City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate was neutral and generally applicable. These were the defendants’ arguments in support of their anticipated motion to dismiss; the opinion does not decide that motion.
Hasselriis consented to the requested discovery stay. The defendants argued that discovery had not begun, that there would be little prejudice to Hasselriis, and that proceeding with discovery before the motion to dismiss would unnecessarily use time and resources.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the request to stay discovery. The court’s order states that, once the case-management plan is in place and the motion to dismiss is filed, the defendant may file a motion to stay discovery if appropriate. The court reminded the parties to make the required pre-conference filings by August 26, 2025, at noon, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 15.
The order did not rule on the anticipated motion to dismiss or decide whether Hasselriis’s claims have merit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.