Williams v. New York City Police Department
- Ricardo
- 1:25-cv-04390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Williams v. New York City Police Department, Magistrate Judge Ricardo received a request to pause discovery, but the provided text shows no ruling.
The plaintiff and the New York City Police Department and City of New York are affected by the request to pause discovery. The provided text does not show whether the court granted or denied it.
What happened
In Williams v. New York City Police Department, the defendants asked the court to pause fact-gathering while they prepared a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff agreed to the requested pause.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s New York City Human Rights Law claim was filed too late and lacked a required element. They also argued that any religious-exercise claim was too late and barred by existing appeals-court decisions about the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The letter was addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo. The provided text contains the defendants’ request and arguments, but does not show that Judge Ricardo granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Williams v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:25-cv-04390
- Ricardo
- Aug. 29, 2025
Document and posture
The provided text is a letter from Kathleen M. Linnane, an assistant corporation counsel, submitted for the New York City Police Department and the City of New York. It asks the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the defendants prepare an anticipated motion to dismiss the complaint. The letter states that the plaintiff consents to the request. The text does not include a separate order ruling on the request.
Background and claims
According to the letter, the plaintiff was formerly a New York City Police Department police officer and retired after the defendants denied his request for a religious exemption from the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The letter says the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to accommodate his religion. It also says that the plaintiff appears to assert a claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Defendants’ anticipated arguments
The defendants state that they intend to move to dismiss. They argue that the New York City Human Rights Law claim is barred by its three-year statute of limitations. They also argue that the claim fails because, after the plaintiff retired, he was not subject to discipline by his employer, which the defendants describe as a required element of the alleged failure-to-accommodate claim. They further contend that enforcing the vaccine mandate was an employment-qualification issue rather than disciplinary action and that the proposed accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship because an unvaccinated, public-facing police officer could create health and safety risks.
As to any Free Exercise Clause claim, the defendants argue that it is also time-barred and that binding Second Circuit precedent treats the vaccine mandate as neutral and generally applicable, making it constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause. These are the defendants’ anticipated arguments, not rulings stated in the provided text.
Request to stay discovery
The defendants cite the rule allowing a court to protect parties from undue discovery burdens for good cause. They argue that the claims appear unlikely to succeed, that discovery would waste time and resources while the anticipated motion is pending, and that the plaintiff would face little prejudice because discovery had not begun and he consented to the stay.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that Judge Henry J. Ricardo granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request to stay discovery. It therefore records a request and supporting arguments rather than a court ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.