Hasselriis v. New York City Police Department and City of New York

Background

Eric Hasselriis alleged that he was an NYPD police officer who sought a religious exemption from the department's pandemic vaccine mandate. He said his Christian beliefs led him to object because he understood that the vaccines used aborted fetal cell lines in their development. According to the amended complaint, he applied for an exemption on October 22, 2021, but the department denied the application using a checklist that stated his statement appeared generic and that he had no demonstrated history of refusing vaccination or medicine.

Hasselriis alleged that he appealed and was told that all appeals would be denied. He said he understood that denial of his appeal would lead to termination and that he therefore resigned under pressure, suffering emotional distress and other harms. He brought a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging that the defendants failed to accommodate his religious beliefs. The court stated that the amended complaint did not assert a claim under the Free Exercise Clause.

Legal framework

The court discussed the Second Circuit's current standard for religious-accommodation claims under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law. Under that standard, a plaintiff must show that an accommodation was actually required for the plaintiff's religious practice, that the employer's desire to avoid that accommodation was a motivating factor, and that the employer made an adverse employment decision. If the plaintiff makes that showing, the employer must prove that the accommodation would cause an undue hardship.

The court explained that the New York City Human Rights Law may be more favorable to employees than Title VII, and that satisfying the Title VII standard is enough to establish liability under the city law.

Defendants' arguments and the court's analysis

The defendants argued that NYPD could not be sued. The court agreed, stating that claims in this context should be directed to the City instead. The court therefore dismissed the claims against NYPD.

The defendants also argued that any Free Exercise claim should be dismissed because Hasselriis did not address it in his opposition to the motion. The court denied that request because the amended complaint asserted no Free Exercise claim.

As to the religious-accommodation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, the defendants argued that the law required Hasselriis to allege that he was disciplined for refusing an employment requirement that conflicted with his beliefs, and that a constructive discharge did not qualify as discipline. The court rejected that argument. It stated that being forced to resign instead of facing termination can count as discipline and that the current standard uses the broader term "adverse employment decision," which includes a constructive discharge.

The defendants further argued that Hasselriis had not adequately pleaded a constructive discharge because he resigned before the department formally decided his appeal. The court said whether a constructive discharge occurred is fact-sensitive and depends on whether a reasonable employee would have felt compelled to resign. Because the complaint alleged that Hasselriis was told his appeal would be denied and the defendants did not dispute that denial would inevitably lead to termination, the court concluded that the timing issue was better addressed after discovery into what Hasselriis was told, what he understood, and what the department's policies were at the time.

The defendants also argued that Hasselriis had not adequately alleged a sincere religious belief requiring accommodation and had not addressed undue hardship. The court said it could not decide the sincerity of a religious belief from the complaint alone. It found that Hasselriis had plainly alleged a sincere religious belief and that following the vaccine mandate would conflict with that belief.

The court treated undue hardship as an affirmative defense that the defendants would have to prove. It noted Hasselriis's allegations that other officers received accommodations and that his application was denied without discussion and apparently because the department viewed his beliefs as insincere and found no history of refusing vaccination or medicine. The court held that deciding undue hardship at the pleading stage was inappropriate.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to the New York City Police Department but otherwise denied the motion. The opinion does not add a prejudice designation to that disposition. The stay was lifted. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and propose, by September 1, 2026, a case-management plan for discovery and summary-judgment proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Entry 27.