Greenberg v. Visiting Nurse Services in Westchester

Background

Kimberly Greenberg sued Visiting Nurse Services in Westchester, Inc. (VNSW) and Andrea Winchester. Greenberg alleged that VNSW violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) by denying her request for a religious exemption or accommodation from VNSW’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. She also alleged that Winchester aided and abetted the NYSHRL violation.

Greenberg alleged that she was a nurse auditor whose work was primarily office-based and that she worked remotely part of the time during the pandemic. She identified herself as a Messianic Jew and stated that vaccination conflicted with her religious beliefs. Her October 4, 2021 letter repeatedly requested a religious exemption and did not request fully remote work or another specific alternative arrangement. VNSW temporarily placed her on remote work, then denied her request, placed her on unpaid administrative leave, and terminated her employment after she did not provide proof of vaccination.

Title VII claim

The court stated that a Title VII religious-accommodation claim requires allegations that the employee had a genuine religious belief conflicting with a work requirement, informed the employer of that belief, and was disciplined for failing to comply with the requirement. The court had previously found that Greenberg adequately pleaded those initial elements, and it reached the same conclusion here.

The court nevertheless held that the claim failed because VNSW could not grant the exemption without violating New York’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, Section 2.61. The court determined that Greenberg qualified as covered “personnel” because she trained staff, including field staff, participated in office activities, and worked in the office part of the time. It also held that Greenberg requested an exemption—being excused from the vaccination requirement—rather than an accommodation that would have removed her from the rule’s coverage.

The court further held that, even if Greenberg’s request were treated as an accommodation request, she did not allege that she asked to work entirely remotely or requested another arrangement that would have removed her from Section 2.61’s definition of covered personnel. The court concluded that granting the requested exemption would have imposed an undue hardship on VNSW because it would have required violating state law and would have created health and safety risks. The court therefore granted the motion as to Greenberg’s Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim against VNSW.

New York claims and final disposition

Greenberg’s other claims arose under the NYSHRL: one against VNSW and one against Winchester for aiding and abetting. After dismissing the federal Title VII claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over the NYSHRL claims. The court dismissed the NYSHRL claims against VNSW and Winchester.

Greenberg requested permission to file a second amended complaint. The court noted that she had already amended once, had been informed of the pleading deficiencies, and had not identified facts that would cure them. Because this was the second explicit adjudication of her claims on the merits, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.