Abadi v. City of New York

Background

Aaron Abadi, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state common law. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for certain constitutional violations caused by government action. Abadi challenged two City orders related to COVID-19:

- Emergency Executive Order 225 required people five or older to show proof of vaccination, and in some circumstances identification, to enter covered indoor entertainment, recreation, dining, and fitness locations. The order included limited exceptions. - Executive Order 78 required City employees and covered employees of City contractors to provide proof of vaccination or, until vaccination proof was submitted, provide a negative weekly COVID-19 test. Later City orders changed some of these requirements.

Abadi alleged that he had recovered from COVID-19 and believed he had natural immunity. He argued that the orders improperly treated him differently from vaccinated people, burdened his bodily integrity, limited his ability to work and participate in activities, and amounted to false imprisonment. He sought a preliminary injunction, an emergency order that would have prevented the City from enforcing the orders against people with natural immunity or against him specifically.

Legal standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction against government action, Abadi had to show irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the public interest and balance of the equities favored the injunction. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Abadi had shown irreparable harm because he alleged constitutional violations. It focused on whether he was likely to succeed and whether the public-interest factors favored relief.

Equal protection claim

The court held that Abadi had not shown a likelihood of success on his equal protection claim. The orders did not distinguish based on race, religion, or another constitutionally protected characteristic. Instead, they distinguished between vaccinated and unvaccinated people and applied to unvaccinated people generally.

The court considered possible theories that the City selectively treated Abadi differently or treated him as a one-person class. Both theories required him to show that he was treated differently from similarly situated people and, depending on the theory, that the distinction lacked a permissible basis or a rational basis. The court found that Abadi did not identify appropriate comparators or show that the distinction lacked a rational basis. It concluded that slowing the spread of COVID-19 and reducing severe illness provided a rational basis for distinguishing between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, even though Abadi argued that his natural immunity made him as protected as, or more protected than, vaccinated people.

Bodily-integrity claim

The court treated Abadi’s bodily-integrity argument as a substantive due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that the orders did not unlawfully invade his bodily integrity because they did not require him to receive a vaccine, impose a fine or imprisonment for refusing vaccination, or physically alter his body. Instead, they placed conditions on access to certain venues and, under the employment order, imposed requirements on covered employees and contractors.

The court also rejected Abadi’s reading that Executive Order 78 prevented him from applying for City jobs. It stated that the order required covered employees and contractors to show vaccination proof or face possible disciplinary consequences, but did not restrict who could apply for City employment.

False-imprisonment claim

The court held that Abadi was not likely to succeed on his false-imprisonment claim under New York law. A false-imprisonment claim requires intentional confinement, awareness of the confinement, lack of consent, and confinement that was not legally justified. The court found that Abadi did not allege actual confinement, threatening conduct, or the City’s intent to confine him. Restrictions on entering certain establishments were not the type of confinement required for false imprisonment.

Public interest and disposition

The court concluded that the public interest and balance of the equities favored the City. It found that the orders were related to the public-health goal of slowing the pandemic’s spread and that vaccination requirements for indoor activities and covered City-related work were rational measures in response to COVID-19. The court relied in part on earlier decisions rejecting emergency challenges to similar requirements.

Judge Engelmayer denied Abadi’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion did not dismiss the action. It directed the City to answer the amended complaint, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that it relied on its earlier motion. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.