Bonilla v. City of New York

Background

Tatiana Bonilla sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the New York City Department of Education over New York City’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate for Department of Education employees. The court treated the case as one against the City because the two departments were not suable agencies of the City.

Bonilla had worked as a special education teacher for the Department of Education. She alleged that, as a Christian, she could not receive a COVID-19 vaccine because fetal stem cells had been used in developing and testing current vaccines and her faith taught that life begins in the womb. She submitted a religious-exemption request and a letter from her church’s reverend. The Department of Education denied the request, and later appeals—including review by a citywide panel—were also denied. She was placed on leave without pay and was later fired for failing to comply with the mandate.

Bonilla brought eleven causes of action under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the New York Constitution, and various state and local laws. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Federal religious-liberty claim

Bonilla challenged the mandate both on its face and as applied to her. The court relied on a prior Second Circuit ruling holding that the mandate was neutral and generally applicable because it applied to all Department of Education staff and comparable workers in school settings, rather than singling out people who declined vaccination for religious reasons. The court also held that the mandate had a rational basis: protecting public health and safety and promoting safe, in-person learning.

The court rejected Bonilla’s argument that the mandate lacked a rational basis because vaccination did not eliminate the need for masking. The court noted that the cited public-health guidance described vaccination as an important prevention strategy and recommended vaccination for teachers and staff.

The court also rejected Bonilla’s challenge to the exemption-review process. It concluded that the citywide panel’s questions about other medications, vaccines, and fetal-cell objections were directed at determining whether the stated belief was sincerely held and religious in nature, not at deciding whether the belief was objectively valid. The court further noted that the panel denied the appeal based on the claimed undue hardship of allowing an unvaccinated employee to work in schools, not because it found Bonilla’s religious belief insincere. The facial and as-applied religious-exercise claims were dismissed.

Equal-protection claim

Bonilla argued that the mandate had a disparate impact on religious people and that she was treated differently from similarly situated Department of Education employees whose exemption requests were granted. The court rejected the disparate-impact theory because it rested on the same religious-discrimination arguments rejected under the Free Exercise Clause and therefore was subject to the same rational-basis analysis.

The court rejected the “class-of-one” theory because the Supreme Court has held that this theory does not apply in public employment. The court also stated that Bonilla, as a former Department of Education employee, lacked standing to challenge aspects of the mandate applying to non-Department of Education employees. The equal-protection claim was dismissed.

Federal separation-of-powers claim

Bonilla sought a declaration that the City lacked authority to issue the mandate. The court understood this claim as invoking the nondelegation doctrine, which limits Congress’s delegation of federal legislative power. It held that the doctrine did not apply because the City acted under the New York City Charter enacted by the New York State Legislature, not under a delegation of congressional authority. The federal separation-of-powers claim was dismissed.

State and local claims

After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bonilla’s claims under the New York Constitution and state and local law. Those non-federal claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion does not clearly identify the final numbering of all state and local counts because that portion of the text contains a garbled count reference.