Bellingham v. New York State Unified Court System
- Richard Berman
- 1:25-cv-03711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Howard Bellingham v. New York State Unified Court System, Judge Berman denied dismissal because alleged EEOC delays may excuse the late discrimination charge.
Howard Bellingham’s discrimination case was allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage; the New York State Unified Court System’s dismissal motion was denied.
What happened
Howard Bellingham sued the New York State Unified Court System, alleging that it failed to accommodate his religious objection to a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, denied his exemption request, and terminated his employment on April 7, 2022.
The Unified Court System argued that Bellingham’s discrimination claim was too late because he filed his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge 422 days after his termination, rather than within the required 300 days. Bellingham argued that delays and failures by the agency caused him to miss the deadline.
The court denied the motion to dismiss. Judge Berman ruled that Bellingham had alleged enough facts at this stage to potentially qualify for an exception extending the deadline, and referred the parties to a magistrate judge for pretrial management.
The detailed version
- Bellingham v. New York State Unified Court System · No. 1:25-cv-03711
- Richard Berman
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Howard Bellingham alleged that the New York State Unified Court System failed to reasonably accommodate his sincerely held religious objections to a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, denied his requested religious exemption, and terminated his employment on April 7, 2022.
The Unified Court System moved to dismiss the discrimination claim as untimely. It argued that Bellingham was required to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the alleged unlawful act. Bellingham filed his EEOC charge on June 9, 2023, which was 422 days after his alleged termination.
Bellingham argued that he could rely on equitable tolling, a legal doctrine that may extend a filing deadline when fairness requires it. He alleged that, during an initial EEOC interview in May 2022, he was told to wait while the agency reviewed and prepared his charge. He further alleged that the EEOC portal showed no change for about a year, that he called the EEOC twice a week for a year without receiving a response, that information later disappeared from the portal, and that the EEOC admitted it had not assisted him in a timely manner.
Ruling
The court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Bellingham had alleged enough facts to plausibly suggest that equitable tolling should apply to the 300-day EEOC filing deadline. The court relied on his allegations that the EEOC told him to wait, failed to respond to his follow-up efforts, and admitted that it had not assisted him promptly.
The court did not decide whether Bellingham’s discrimination allegations were ultimately proven. Its ruling addressed only whether the claim could be dismissed as untimely based on the allegations at this stage.
The parties were referred to a magistrate judge for general pretrial management, including development of a case-management plan concluding with a trial date of July 5, 2027.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.