Mendez v. Fire Department of the City of New York
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-04825
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mendez v. Fire Department, Judge Garnett granted in part a request to postpone discovery and moved the initial pretrial conference.
Mendez and the City of New York and Fire Department of the City of New York, because discovery is paused and the initial pretrial conference is postponed while the defendants prepare an anticipated motion to dismiss.
What happened
Mendez v. Fire Department of the City of New York concerns a former Fire Department employee who alleges the City and Fire Department violated New York City law by denying a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The defendants also understood the complaint to raise a religious-freedom claim.
The defendants asked to pause discovery while they prepared a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims could not succeed. The plaintiff agreed to the request, and discovery had not yet begun.
Judge Garnett granted the request in part. She moved the initial pretrial conference from September 24 to October 29, 2025, and put discovery on hold until that conference. The court did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Fire Department of the City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-04825
- Garnett
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
The filing states that Mendez was formerly employed by the Fire Department of the City of New York and was terminated after refusing to comply with the City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Mendez alleges that the City and the Fire Department violated the New York City Human Rights Law by denying a request for a religious exemption from the mandate. The defendants also construed the complaint as asserting a claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Request to pause discovery
The defendants asked the court to stay discovery—that is, temporarily stop the exchange of information between the parties—while they prepared a motion to dismiss. They argued that the New York City Human Rights Law claim was insufficient because, in their view, Mendez had not alleged the required disciplinary action and the requested accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship. They also argued that any religious-freedom claim was barred by Second Circuit precedent concerning the City’s vaccine mandate. Mendez consented to the requested stay, and the filing states that discovery had not yet begun.
Court’s order
The court marked the request “GRANTED in part.” It adjourned the previously scheduled initial pretrial conference from September 24, 2025, to October 29, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. The court ordered that discovery be held in abeyance until that date, based on the parties’ consent and a showing of good cause. The court stated that it would consider any request for a further discovery stay at the October 29 conference. The order did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.