Wilson v. New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled
Wilson v. New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled, maintaining the Hospital for Special Surgery
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-09207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wilson v. New York Society, Judge Torres granted the motion to dismiss but allowed Wilson to replead one federal claim by January 12, 2024.
Omar Newton Wilson’s religious-discrimination claims against New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled, Maintaining the Hospital for Special Surgery; the order granted the employer’s motion to dismiss and allowed Wilson to amend only the claim identified in the order as his Title VI claim.
What happened
Omar Newton Wilson, who was representing himself, sued his former employer, New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled, Maintaining the Hospital for Special Surgery. He alleged religious discrimination after the employer denied his request for a religious exemption from taking the coronavirus vaccine, asserting claims under federal, state, and city laws.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the employer’s motion to dismiss the state and city claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and allowing Wilson to seek permission to amend his federal claim. Wilson did not file formal objections, and the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Judge Analisa Torres found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and granted the motion to dismiss. The order allowed Wilson to file an amended complaint by January 12, 2024, repleading only what the order calls his Title VI claim.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled · No. 1:22-cv-09207
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 13, 2023
Background
Omar Newton Wilson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled, Maintaining the Hospital for Special Surgery. Wilson alleged that the employer discriminated against him on religious grounds by denying his request for a “religious exemption from taking the Coronavirus vaccine.” The opinion states that he asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Report and Recommendation
The magistrate judge recommended granting the employer’s motion to dismiss the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation would allow Wilson to replead facts, if any existed, supporting a religious-discrimination claim under Title VII. The magistrate judge also concluded that the vaccine regulation was in effect when Wilson requested the exemption, making it an undue hardship for the employer to accommodate the request, and that Wilson had not otherwise established a preliminary case of religious discrimination.
Wilson did not file formal objections to the recommendation. He instead submitted a letter citing a New York appellate decision involving a vaccine regulation that was later not enforced and repealed. The court treated the letter, at most, as an objection but reviewed the recommendation for clear error because the cited issue was not new. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The order states that the employer’s motion to dismiss is granted. It permits Wilson to file an amended complaint by January 12, 2024, repleading only his “Title VI claim.” The opinion earlier identifies the federal claim as arising under Title VII, so the order’s reference to Title VI is not clarified in the text. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment consistent with the order and the Report and Recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.