Maiorino v. New York City Department of Sanitation

Background

Vincent Maiorino worked as a full-time sanitation worker for the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) from approximately May 30, 2005, until February 11, 2022. He identifies as a practicing Roman Catholic and alleged that his religious beliefs prevented him from receiving COVID-19 vaccines developed using aborted fetal cell lines.

A New York City vaccine mandate required City employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to remain employed. Employees could request religious or medical accommodations and could appeal denials through either a Citywide Appeals Panel or Scheinman Arbitration and Mediation Services (SAMS). Maiorino submitted a religious-accommodation request to DSNY after the deadline for avoiding unpaid leave. His request used a form he found online and stated generally that the vaccine requirements conflicted with his religious beliefs, but it did not identify him as Catholic or explain the basis of his objection.

DSNY denied the request. Maiorino appealed through the Citywide Appeals Panel and later submitted additional materials describing his Catholic beliefs, his objections to vaccines connected to abortion, and his reliance on religious teachings and personal conscience. He was placed on leave without pay and was discharged on February 11, 2022. The Citywide Panel denied his appeal.

Claims and Motion

Maiorino’s amended complaint asserted four causes of action: violations of the New York City Human Rights Law; violations of the New York State Human Rights Law; failure to engage in cooperative dialogue about a religious accommodation; and a First Amendment free-exercise claim brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. DSNY and the City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally plausible claim.

DSNY as a Defendant

The court held that Maiorino abandoned his claims against DSNY because he did not respond to the defendants’ argument that DSNY could not be sued. The court also concluded that the argument was correct independently: under New York City Charter § 396, City departments generally lack the capacity to be sued. The court therefore addressed the claims against the City rather than DSNY.

First Amendment Claim

The court treated Maiorino’s claim as an as-applied challenge, meaning a claim that a generally applicable policy was applied unconstitutionally to him. The court accepted that the vaccine mandate itself was neutral and generally applicable under controlling Second Circuit precedent. The issue was whether the process used to evaluate his accommodation request was hostile to his religion or otherwise applied to him in a non-neutral manner.

Judge Liman concluded that Maiorino had not plausibly alleged that DSNY acted with hostility toward his Catholic beliefs. His initial request did not identify his religion, describe his religious beliefs, or explain why those beliefs required an exemption. Because the request did not provide that information, the court reasoned that DSNY could not have discriminated against him based on beliefs of which it was unaware.

The court separately considered Maiorino’s later submissions to the Citywide Panel. It found no well-pleaded allegation that the panel considered those materials because the applicable process limited review to documents submitted to DSNY. The court also found no allegation showing that the Citywide Panel applied the allegedly discriminatory SAMS procedures to Maiorino’s appeal. Although the court stated that a claim might have been plausible if Maiorino had used Option 2 and the SAMS procedures had been applied to him, he chose Option 1 instead.

The court therefore held that Maiorino failed to state a First Amendment free-exercise claim against the City.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Maiorino’s claims under the New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws and his cooperative-dialogue claim. The court concluded that the case was still at the pleading stage and that resolving the state-law claims in state court would avoid unnecessary decisions of state law.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice to filing an amended complaint within 20 days of the opinion and order. If Maiorino does not timely amend, the court stated that it will enter an order dismissing the case and dismissing the state-law claims with leave to refile them in state court. The Clerk was directed to close docket entry 38.