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

Background

Thomas Velluzzi worked as a steamfitter for the New York City Police Department’s Facility Maintenance Division from 2019 to 2022. He alleged that he was a Catholic who opposed vaccination on religious grounds. After New York City adopted a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for City employees, Velluzzi requested an accommodation allowing him to submit a weekly COVID-19 test instead of receiving the vaccine.

The Police Department denied the request, and a citywide appeals panel later denied his appeal. Velluzzi did not submit proof of vaccination, was placed on leave without pay, and was terminated on June 7, 2022. He alleged that the denial improperly disregarded his individual religious beliefs and sought damages for lost pay, benefits, and emotional harm.

Velluzzi asserted four claims: an as-applied challenge under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; failure-to-accommodate claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law; and failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but it does not accept bare legal conclusions.

Police Department as a defendant

The court held that the New York City Police Department, as a City agency, is not a suable entity. Because Velluzzi did not oppose this argument, the court dismissed all claims against the Police Department, leaving the City as the only defendant.

Article 78 and federal jurisdiction

The City argued that Velluzzi was required to challenge the accommodation decisions through an Article 78 proceeding in New York state court. Article 78 provides a faster, more limited way to challenge government-agency decisions and generally offers declaratory or injunctive relief rather than the full damages Velluzzi sought.

The court rejected this argument. It concluded that Velluzzi’s claims were discrimination claims rather than merely an attempt to overturn an administrative decision. The court also noted that he sought compensatory damages, including damages for pain and suffering, which would not generally be available through an Article 78 proceeding. The court concluded that the claims were timely and that the case was properly filed in federal court.

First Amendment claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Count I, Velluzzi’s as-applied First Amendment claim. An as-applied challenge argues that a government policy was unconstitutional as applied to a particular person, rather than arguing that the policy is invalid in every circumstance.

The court recognized that the City’s vaccination mandate and citywide accommodation procedures had been upheld as facially neutral and generally applicable. But Velluzzi was challenging how those procedures were applied to his individual accommodation request. He alleged that decision-makers treated his religious beliefs as too unusual or inconsistent with official Catholic teaching. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage because the First Amendment does not permit decision-makers to reject a religious accommodation merely because the applicant’s beliefs differ from the views of a religious leader or institution.

The court also rejected dismissal based on undue hardship. Velluzzi alleged that he worked alone for approximately 90 percent of his work hours in mechanical rooms and that the City had granted weekly-testing accommodations to more than 559 other Police Department employees, including employees who worked in closer contact with the public and coworkers. The court found that the City had not identified a clear reason why accommodating Velluzzi would have imposed an undue hardship.

New York State and City accommodation claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Counts II and III, the failure-to-accommodate claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Those laws generally require an employer to accommodate a sincerely held religious practice unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.

The court concluded that Velluzzi plausibly alleged a bona fide religious belief. His letters connected his opposition to vaccination to his beliefs about God, the sacred nature of the human body, and religious objections to certain vaccine-development materials. Whether he sincerely held those beliefs was a factual question that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The court also rejected the City’s argument that his beliefs were invalid because they differed from the position of Pope Francis or official Catholic teaching.

The court further concluded that Velluzzi plausibly alleged the required employer awareness and motivation. He formally requested an accommodation, and his termination letter cited his refusal to comply with the mandate. The court also rejected the City’s argument that termination for failing to meet a vaccination requirement was merely a condition of employment rather than discipline for purposes of the human-rights claims.

Finally, the court found that the City had not shown at this stage that weekly testing would have caused an undue hardship. It emphasized Velluzzi’s allegation that he worked mostly alone and the allegation that hundreds of other Police Department employees received weekly-testing accommodations.

Cooperative-dialogue claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss Count IV against the City. The New York City Human Rights Law requires an employer and an employee seeking an accommodation to engage in a good-faith written or oral discussion about the employee’s needs and possible alternatives.

The court concluded that the process described in Velluzzi’s complaint satisfied that requirement. The Police Department provided information about how to request an accommodation and appeal a denial; Velluzzi submitted a request; the Police Department issued a checklist identifying reasons for denial; and the citywide panel considered and denied his appeal. The court held that the law did not require the City to provide more detailed feedback to every applicant under the circumstances described. Although Velluzzi alleged that the Police Department did not explain how he could correct deficiencies in his application, he did not allege that he asked for such guidance.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss all claims against the New York City Police Department and to dismiss Count IV against the City was granted. The motion to dismiss Counts I through III against the City was denied. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.