Ciccaglione v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Nature of the filing

The provided document is a letter from counsel for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and Mayor Eric Adams concerning an anticipated motion to dismiss Bryce Ciccaglione’s amended complaint. It is not a court opinion or order resolving that anticipated motion.

Background

The letter states that Ciccaglione filed an amended complaint on February 2, 2022, despite having told the court during a February 1 pre-motion conference that he did not intend to amend his complaint. The amended complaint challenged the city’s Key to NYC executive orders and an order issued by the City Commissioner of Health.

According to the letter, the Commissioner’s order required certain nongovernmental employers with more than one worker in New York City to keep records showing each employee’s proof of COVID-19 vaccination or, when applicable, a reasonable accommodation. It also required covered employers to exclude employees who had not provided that proof or had been denied a reasonable accommodation.

Defendants’ stated arguments

The defendants said they intended to seek dismissal of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act. They argued that Ciccaglione did not allege discrimination based on a disability, race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in a public accommodation.

The defendants also argued that the Fourth Amendment did not apply because the challenged policies did not involve searches or seizures, and because disclosure of vaccination proof was voluntary. They argued that the Nuremberg Code did not provide a claim because the case did not concern an experiment or clinical trial or forcible vaccination.

The letter further argued that a Supreme Court decision concerning an Occupational Safety and Health Administration vaccination regulation did not apply because Ciccaglione challenged city orders instead. Finally, the defendants stated that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act does not create a private right to sue and, in any event, that the challenged orders did not require the nonconsensual disclosure of protected medical records.

Request and disposition

The defendants asked Judge John G. Koeltl either to schedule a pre-motion conference or to approve a two-week extension, until March 15, 2022, for filing a motion to dismiss. The supplied text does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved that request. No disposition of the amended complaint appears in the provided document.