Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corporation

Background

Nelson Algarin worked for more than 32 years as an information-technology professional at NYC Health + Hospitals Corporation. He alleged that he did not work directly with patients or healthcare professionals and generally worked in a cubicle in an area with closed doors. After H+H required vaccination against COVID-19, Algarin told H+H that his Christian religious beliefs prevented him from receiving a vaccine tested, developed, or produced with fetal cell lines derived from procured abortions. He offered to continue weekly COVID-19 testing instead.

H+H initially approved the accommodation, according to the complaint, but later revoked it and placed Algarin on unpaid leave under New York State Department of Health regulation Section 2.61. H+H later told him that he could be vaccinated, resign, or be terminated. His employment was terminated on November 29, 2021.

Algarin initially brought five claims: religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; a § 1983 Equal Protection claim; religious-discrimination claims under New York State law and New York City law; and related allegations concerning aiding and abetting. In opposing the motion, Algarin voluntarily dismissed the Equal Protection claim. H+H moved to dismiss the remaining claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court did not address H+H’s alternative timeliness argument because H+H did not brief it.

Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law

The court treated Algarin’s Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law claims together because the standards overlap. To plead a religious-accommodation claim, Algarin had to allege a sincere religious belief conflicting with an employment requirement, notice to the employer, and discipline for failing to comply with that requirement. The court found that his allegations were sufficient to plead those initial elements.

The court nevertheless dismissed the claims because the requested accommodation would have caused an undue hardship. Section 2.61 required covered healthcare entities to continuously require vaccination of covered personnel, subject to a medical exemption but not a general religious exemption. The court concluded that Algarin qualified as covered personnel because he worked on site with coworkers and therefore could potentially expose covered personnel, patients, or residents if infected.

The court held that weekly testing would not have removed Algarin from Section 2.61’s definition of personnel. Allowing him to continue working in that arrangement would have required H+H to violate the state rule. The court also identified the burdens of tracking testing, exposing other workers to potential infection, and facing possible legal consequences as additional hardships. It concluded that Title VII did not require H+H to provide Algarin’s preferred accommodation.

New York City Human Rights Law

The court separately considered the New York City Human Rights Law, which is interpreted more broadly than federal and state discrimination law. Even under that more liberal standard, the court concluded that the requested accommodation would have required H+H to violate Section 2.61 and would have significantly interfered with the safe and efficient operation of the workplace. The court therefore dismissed the New York City claim. Any purported aiding-and-abetting claims were also dismissed because Algarin did not defend that theory in his opposition and the court found no viable discrimination claim.

First Amendment claim under Section 1983

Algarin alleged that H+H’s vaccination policy violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and sued under § 1983, which allows claims for constitutional violations by entities acting under state law. The court treated H+H as a proper § 1983 defendant because it is a public benefit corporation.

The court applied the rule that a neutral and generally applicable law generally receives rational-basis review, meaning it need only be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. It held that Section 2.61 was neutral because it applied to covered personnel regardless of why they declined vaccination and did not target religious conduct. The court also held that the rule was generally applicable because the medical exemption and the requested religious exemption were not comparable: the medical exemption addressed health risks from vaccination and could end when vaccination was no longer medically detrimental.

The court concluded that Section 2.61 was rationally related to legitimate public-health goals, including reducing COVID-19 transmission in healthcare facilities and protecting the health of healthcare workers so that staffing shortages would not compromise patient safety. It therefore dismissed Algarin’s Free Exercise claim.

Disposition

The court granted H+H’s motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the claims could not be refiled in the same action. The court declined to grant leave to amend because Algarin had not requested amendment and had not shown how the pleading deficiencies could be cured. The clerk was directed to close the case.