Brock v. The City of New York

Background

Mandela Brock, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and then-Mayor Bill de Blasio. He alleged that an order issued by the Commissioner of the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, requiring COVID-19 vaccination for workers in New York City, violated the Constitution and federal law. Brock later amended his complaint to add Mayor Eric Adams and sought permission to add his employer and three individual defendants who worked for Avo Shopping Company.

Brock also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. These are temporary forms of court relief that can preserve a party’s position or prevent alleged harm while a case continues. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a report and recommendation that granted in part and denied in part Brock’s motion to amend and recommended denying the request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Brock objected.

Court’s review

Judge Torres reviewed the magistrate judge’s handling of the motion to amend under the standard for non-dispositive matters, asking whether the decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court found it was neither. In particular, the court rejected Brock’s objections to the conclusion that adding the three Avo Shopping Company employees would be futile and to treating the company as separate from its employees.

The court reviewed the preliminary-injunction recommendation de novo to the extent Brock specifically objected to it. De novo review means the district judge considers the issue independently rather than giving deference to the magistrate judge’s conclusion.

First Amendment analysis

Brock objected to the finding that he was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim concerning religious exercise. The court explained that a government policy generally receives stricter review if it burdens religious practice while targeting religion or failing to apply generally. The court found that the vaccination order was neutral and generally applicable because it did not single out a religion or religious conduct and applied to all employees and employers. The court also noted that the order provided exemptions for sincerely held religious beliefs or observations.

Because the court found the order neutral and generally applicable, it applied rational-basis review, a deferential test asking whether the government’s action is reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. The court concluded that the City’s goal of preventing, mitigating, controlling, and reducing the COVID-19 public-health emergency was sufficient under that test. It found that the City could rationally determine that vaccination would reduce the spread of an infectious disease and help protect City residents. The court therefore agreed that Brock was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment challenge.

Disposition

The court overruled Brock’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. Brock’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was DENIED. The court also overruled his objections to the report and recommendation’s resolution of his motion to amend. The opinion does not state a final disposition of Brock’s underlying claims.