W.D. v. Rockland County Department of Health

Background

The plaintiffs are parents suing on behalf of their minor children. The defendants are Rockland County, Dr. Patricia Schnabel Ruppert in her roles as Commissioner of the Rockland County Department of Health, and Ed Day as County Executive; the officials were sued in both their individual and official capacities. The case concerns the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim involving an exclusion order and emergency declaration, as well as New York’s mandatory vaccination requirements.

At a January 19, 2024 final pretrial conference, the court requested briefing on whether the jury should be instructed that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirement that their religious beliefs be sincerely held. The parties submitted letter briefs on January 22, 2024.

Parties’ Positions

The plaintiffs argued that the jury should be told this element was satisfied because relevant school authorities had already recognized that the plaintiffs held sincere religious beliefs prohibiting vaccination of their children. They also argued that the beliefs should not be treated as less religious or less sincere outside the school setting and that separating the issue by location would confuse the jury.

The defendants argued that the school exemptions were irrelevant to public places outside school because, in their view, the statute underlying the plaintiffs’ claim referred only to the school setting. Neither party cited case law supporting its position in the briefing described by the court.

Court’s Analysis

The court discussed Second Circuit precedent recognizing that New York’s Commissioner of Health may delegate to school officials the authority to determine whether a student has demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief qualifying for a vaccination exemption. New York law required children to receive immunizing agents against measles, while the regulation in effect in 2018 allowed religious exemptions and delegated authority to schools to grant them.

The court found it undisputed that school officials had granted the plaintiffs exemptions because they demonstrated sincerely held religious beliefs against immunization. It concluded that nothing in the statute or regulation limited the relevant beliefs to the school setting. The court also determined that it would be confusing to tell the jury that the plaintiffs had established sincere religious beliefs for school purposes but that the jury still had to decide whether those same beliefs extended beyond school. Because the defendants did not challenge the exemptions when they were issued, the court held that they could not challenge them at that point in the case.

Ruling and Scope

The court ruled that the jury will be instructed that the plaintiffs have established the sincerely held religious belief requirement of their First Amendment free-exercise claim. This is a ruling about that element of the claim, not a final decision stated in this order on all issues in the case.

The order preserved a limitation from the court’s January 19 bench ruling on the defendants’ motion in limine. The defendants may still argue that the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs did not cause damages by impairing their ability to practice their religion. Judge Judith C. McCarthy dated and signed the order on January 30, 2024.