Mora v. New York State Unified Court System

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Frank Mora, a City Court Judge for the City of Poughkeepsie, New York, brings this action against his employer, the New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration (“OCA”), and individual defendants Tamiko Amaker, Anne Minihan, Lawrence Marks, Justin Barry, Nancy Barry, Rosemary Martinez-Burges, Jennifer DiLallo, Shawn Kerby, Keith Miller, Linda Dunlap-Miller, Scott Murphy, Michelle Smith, John Sullivan, and Dan Weitz (together, the “Individual Defendants”). He alleges defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him a religious exemption to OCA’s COVID-19 vaccine policy. Now pending are OCA’s and the Individual Defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, each pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Docs. ##73, 81). For the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. BACKGROUND For the purpose of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all wellpleaded factual allegations in the second amended complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, as summarized below. I. COVID-19 Vaccine Religious Exemption Request Plaintiff is a “duly appointed and sworn” City Court Judge sitting in Poughkeepsie, New York. (Doc. #94 (“SAC”) 1). He describes himself as a “devout, knowledgeable, and committed Catholic.” (Id.). Plaintiff contends that, in August 2021, the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals promulgated a requirement that all OCA employees, including judges, be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless an employee applied for, and was granted, a religious or medical exemption (the “Vaccine Mandate”). On September 10, 2021, defendant Lawrence Marks, the former Chief Administrative Judge for OCA, circulated a memorandum requiring all judges to “obtain and submit proof of COVID-19 vaccination by September 27, 2021 or submit and obtain an approval for a medical or sincerely-held religious exemption.” (Doc. #74-3 (the “Marks Memorandum” at ECF 1);¹ see also SAC 13).² To seek a religious exemption, a judge had to submit “a signed and notarized statement detailing the religious basis for his/her objection to COVID-19 vaccination and the religious principle(s) that guide the objections to COVID-19 vaccination.” (Marks Memorandum at ECF 2). Judges who received a religious exemption were provided an expiration date for the exemption and required to submit weekly proof of testing. Judges who were denied a religious exemption had to submit proof of their first vaccination within ten business days after being notified of the denial.³ OCA created a Vaccine Exemption Committee (“VEC”) to evaluate employee requests for religious exemptions. According to the SAC, the following Individual Defendants are members of the VEC: Justin Barry, Nancy Barry, Rosemary Martinez-Burges, Jennifer DiLallo, Shawn Kerby, Keith Miller, Linda Dunlap-Miller, Scott Murphy, Michelle Smith, John Sullivan, and Dan Weitz (together, the “VEC Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges the VEC was comprised of two working groups, and that a minimum of three voting members was required for a working group to decide on an employee’s vaccine exemption request. The VEC’s determination to grant or deny an exemption request was allegedly final: there was “no administrative/internal mechanism for appealing” the VEC’s determination. (SAC 26). Plaintiff submitted an application for a religious exemption on September 21, 2021 — his affidavit submitted therewith is attached to the SAC. (SAC at ECF 32).⁴ In the affidavit, plaintiff states he has been Roman Catholic since his baptism in 1970, and has held several positions with a church and studied scripture. He states he has claimed exemption from all vaccinations since the birth of his three children, the oldest of whom was seventeen years old at the time of his exemption request. He says he is “opposed to all immunizations,” including the New York vaccine mandate for public schools enacted by “the NYS Legislature and the former disgraced Governor” that “unethically kicked [his children] out of school in 2019.” (SAC at ECF 35). He discusses the founding of the United States on religious freedom, an “unalienable right,” and laments how “[w]hen we as a society demand that parents, and now adults, prove they have ‘sincere religious beliefs,’ we truly are going down a slippery slope.” (Id.) He identifies the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” as “the supreme teaching authority of the Catholic Church” and purports to quote from scripture throughout the affidavit. (SAC at ECF 35). For example, he includes the following quote, attributed to Matthew 12: “People who are in good health do not need a doctor; sick people do.” (SAC at ECF 37). He concludes by saying vaccinating himself against COVID-19 “would be an act of violence against my conscience, and thus, an evil,” and that “[i]t is my sincere religious conviction and belief that God has created us whole, with everything we need to grow according to His natural ways, and to vaccinate is a violation of God’s way.” (SAC at ECF 38). On November 4, 2021, the VEC sent plaintiff an email stating the VEC had considered his application, but “requires more information before it can make a final determination,” attaching a supplemental form. (Doc. #74-5 at ECF 1).⁵ Section B of the supplemental form states: You have provided information in a previous statement indicating that your religious faith calls for you to abstain from medicines and vaccines due to concerns regarding the sanctity of your body or its purity. Please answer the questions below to allow us to gain a better understanding of your beliefs. 1. Please list all the medicines, medical treatments and procedures, vaccines, and/or foods that you abstain from due to your religious beliefs: 2. Please list the date you began to abstain from the above listed medicines and vaccines and/or other medical treatments: 3. Please provide a detailed explanation as to why your relpigious faith requires you to abstain from the listed substances in question 1. 4. Have you received an influenza (flu), pneumonia, tetanus, shingles, HPV or any other type of vaccine since turning 18 years of age? If yes, please specify the type of vaccine(s) and when it/they was/were administered. 5. If you listed any vaccines in question 4, please explain how your religious beliefs permit you to take these vaccines but prohibit the taking of a COVID-19 vaccine. (Id. at ECF 6). Plaintiff submitted a response to the supplemental form on November 12, 2021. (Doc. #74-6 (“Supplemental Response”)). In response to question one, plaintiff stated he “fully stated my personal deeply held and sincere religious beliefs regarding vaccines” in his original affidavit. (Id. at ECF 4). He also stated his family “does not take any medicines” and that he would “not speculate” if they would in the future because “it is impossible to comment on something of which I have no knowledge.” (Id.). He also stated there “is no comparison to taking a vaccine to possibly prevent a future disease (please read my [original affidavit] for an in-depth explanation of this issue), and taking a medicine or having a medical treatment or procedure to help a body suffering from a crisis.” (Id.). In fact, plaintiff stated “[i]f my body was in crisis, I would consider all of the options available to me, and discuss what to do with my doctor,” as well as “consult the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and pray to God for guidance.” (Id.). Plaintiff answered question two by saying he began to abstain from vaccines when he was eighteen years old, question three by referring back to his original affidavit, and questions four and five with “No” and “N/A,” respectively. (Supplemental Response at ECF 4). On December 23, 2021, plaintiff received an email from “NYCourts” denying his exemption request. (SAC at ECF 40). The email attached a letter from the VEC, dated December 23, 2021, directing plaintiff to “submit proof of the first dose of [his] COVID-19 vaccination” by January 3, 2022. (Id. at ECF 41). Plaintiff alleges he does not know which VEC Defendants ruled on his exemption request, and that the VEC did not meet with him to discuss his request. On January 3 and 4, 2022, plaintiff alleges defendant Anne Minihan, the Administrative Judge for the Ninth Judicial District, sent him several communications prohibiting him from entering any courthouse in the State of New York, including the courthouse where he worked. Instead, he was allegedly directed to work “virtually and off premises.” (SAC 41). According to plaintiff, she sent these communications after plaintiff reiterated that getting vaccinated would violate his sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiff claims he was only permitted to enter the courthouse to retrieve his personal belongings and drop off papers while court was open. He alleges these restrictions remained in force until February 17, 2023. Plaintiff contends he immediately took issue with these limitations because, according to him, unvaccinated attorneys, litigants, jurors, and members of the public were allowed to enter the facilities without proof of vaccination. For approximately one month, plaintiff alleges OCA ordered him “to desist from conducting criminal proceedings,” which, in plaintiff’s view, comprised a substantial share of his duties as a judge. (SAC 47). He claims his criminal case responsibilities were reassigned to the other Poughkeepsie City Court judge. He also contends he was prohibited from sitting as a presiding judge in county and family courts. On January 31, 2022, plaintiff alleges defendant Minihan issued an Administrative Order allowing him to “preside over (1) civil matters where the litigants have mutually consented to the Judge appearing virtually and (2) the issuance of Decisions and Orders on motions submitted on criminal matters where no appearances are required.” (SAC 49). Plaintiff alleges these limitations humiliated and embarrassed him. On March 2, 2022, plaintiff alleges counsel for OCA “false[ly]” informed plaintiff his exemption request had been denied because he failed to provide information necessary for the VEC to determine if his request was based on a sincerely held religious belief. (SAC 52). Plaintiff alleges counsel for OCA further explained: [Plaintiff's] answer in response to question 1 conflicts with his alleged beliefs, and his failure to provide sufficient details of his religious beliefs in response to question 2 prevented the VEC from being able to determine what, if any, belief or religious tenet prevents him from taking the COVID-19 vaccine, apart from his “conscience.” His submitted statements do not articulate a consistent reason for why he refused some medical treatments, such as vaccines and immunizations, and not other types. (SAC 53). According to plaintiff, this response from OCA’s counsel “represents a blatant intrusion and entangling of church and state prohibited by the First Amendment.” (SAC 54). In April 2022, plaintiff alleges he sought leave from Administrative Judge Minihan to attend a judicial seminar in June or July 2022 at a private venue, but she denied him permission to attend “based on what she described as ‘the unfit letter.’” (SAC 75). On September 21, 2022, plaintiff alleges he again applied for a religious exemption and for leave to resume performing his duties at the Poughkeepsie courthouse. Plaintiff contends that, at this time, there had been a “significant diminution of the threat caused by COVID” and OCA “never required anyone visiting the courts to show proof of vaccination.” (SAC 81). Nevertheless, on September 27, 2022, plaintiff was purportedly informed the VEC’s prior decision was final and it would not review his new application, even though he had “initially been advised that even a successful application for such exemption had only a one-year life.” (SAC 82). In November 2022, plaintiff alleges he again sought permission to enter the Poughkeepsie courthouse. By this time, plaintiff alleges OCA no longer checked the vaccination status of persons entering the courthouse or required them to wear masks, and that the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines had changed to suggest that unvaccinated persons not be excluded from their places of employment. However, plaintiff alleges Minihan denied his request because plaintiff was not in compliance with the Vaccine Mandate. Plaintiff purportedly worked alone from his basement until February 17, 2023, when the Vaccine Mandate was repealed and the restrictions on his access to the courthouses were lifted.⁶ Plaintiff alleges two Orange County Court judges, identified as W.P. and C.B., are married and Catholic and “attended church together for years and shared strongly held religious beliefs.” (SAC 59). Plaintiff contends W.P. and C.B. submitted separate requests for religious exemptions, and the VEC granted W.P. an exemption but denied the same to C.B. He also alleges a court clerk, Milena Scheib, and another full-time OCA employee, Deborah Ghent, are Catholic and submitted requests for religious exemptions. He alleges their applications were “substantially similar to that submitted by plaintiff, invoking the same doctrinal basis in support of their requests for religious exemption,” and that their applications were granted. (SAC