Kane v. de Blasio

Background

The plaintiffs in Kane v. de Blasio filed a lawsuit challenging New York City’s requirement that all employees of the New York City Department of Education be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of continued employment. Plaintiffs in a second, similar case, Keil v. The City of New York, filed a separate lawsuit. The court consolidated the two cases on December 14, 2021.

On June 9, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for the judge’s recusal, meaning that she would step aside from the case. They argued that her ownership of Pfizer Inc. stock created a direct financial conflict because Pfizer was one of three manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States. They also argued that rulings in the case could raise questions about the judge’s objectivity.

Legal standard

The opinion cited federal law requiring a judge to disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or when she has a financial interest in the subject matter or another interest that could be substantially affected by the case’s outcome. The opinion emphasized that the relevant concern is the appearance of bias or prejudice, not only actual bias.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for recusal. Judge Valerie Caproni said she doubted that resolving the case—including deciding whether the Department of Education’s vaccine mandate remained in effect—would meaningfully affect the value of Pfizer stock. The court also rejected the argument that its earlier rulings showed partiality or bias, stating that judicial rulings almost never provide a valid basis for a bias motion. Even so, the judge recused herself out of caution to avoid the possible appearance of bias or prejudice.

The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 171 and reassign consolidated cases 21-CV-7863 and 21-CV-8773 to another judge. This order addressed recusal and reassignment; it did not decide whether the vaccine mandate was lawful.