Gardner-Alfred v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 18 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-cv-1585 (LJL) |
| Parties | LORI GARDNER-ALFRED AND JEANETTE DIAZ, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiffs Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz (“Plaintiffs”) bring claims against their former employer, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY” or “Defendant”), related to the termination of their employment for failing to comply with the requirement that employees be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus. Dkt. No. 24. Defendant moves to dismiss the operative complaint. Dkt. No. 31.
For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq., and New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. The motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
The Court accepts the well-pleaded facts of the amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”), as supplemented by the documents incorporated by reference therein, as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
Defendant is one of twelve Federal Reserve Banks that make up the Federal Reserve System and that were established by the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. § 341 (the “FRA”). Dkt. No. 24 ¶ 4. Plaintiff Lori Gardner-Alfred (“Gardner-Alfred”) began her employment with the FRBNY approximately thirty-five years ago, has held several titles over that time period, and most recently served as the Executive Assistant to the Executive Vice President (“EVP”) of the FRBNY. Id. ¶ 10. In that position, she facilitated and coordinated communications between the EVP and other areas of the FRBNY maintained the EVP's calendar, organized and scheduled meetings and events for the EVP, electronically reserved conference rooms and video conference meetings for the EVP and coordinated travel and reimbursements for the EVP. Id. Plaintiff Jeanette Diaz (“Diaz”) began her employment with the FRBNY approximately twenty-seven years ago, has held several titles over that time period, and most recently served as Senior Executive Specialist, providing direct administrative support to the EVP of Information Technology. Id. ¶ 11. Diaz's job responsibilities were substantively the same as Gardner-Alfred's. Id.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Defendant implemented a mandatory remote work policy for its employees until employees were otherwise notified. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs began working remotely almost immediately and their job performance was unaffected by remote work. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. Both employees received strong performance evaluations for the years 2020 and 2021 Id. ¶ 38.
In March 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine became widely available to adults in the United States. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiffs, however, have both declined to receive any vaccination against COVID-19 for religious reasons. Id. ¶ 64. Gardner-Alfred is a member of the Temple of Healing Spirit, which is a belief system that emphasizes “holistic approaches to health focused on diet and spiritual self-awareness, and opposes the invasive techniques of traditional Western medicine.” Id. ¶ 18. For Gardner-Alfred, the COVID-19 vaccines, by reasons of their “provenance, chemical composition, and origin,” represent “unacceptable intrusions on her personal form.” Id. Diaz is a baptized Catholic and, because of her religious convictions, is morally against receiving certain vaccines. Id. ¶ 19. In particular, Plaintiffs claim that “[t]he COVID-19 injections available in the U.S. all involve use of aborted fetal cells in their manufacturing and/or testing,” id. ¶ 16, and Diaz believes, among other things, that any individual Catholic may “refuse a vaccine that used abortion-derived cell lines at any stage of the creation of the vaccine,” id. ¶ 21.
On or about June 4, 2021, Defendant notified its employees that it would soon require employees to return to office on a part-time basis. Id. ¶ 26. Shortly thereafter Defendant asked its employees to provide their COVID-19 vaccination status. Id. Plaintiffs responded that they were not vaccinated. Id. On or about August 2, 2021, Defendant implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy (“Vaccination Policy”), requiring that every FRBNY employee be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Id. ¶ 28.
The Vaccination Policy allows for certain religious and medical exemptions. Id. ¶ 30. Specifically, the Vaccination Policy provides an exemption “as required by law, for employees unable to obtain a vaccine due to a medical condition or sincerely held religious belief that precludes receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Id. (citation omitted). Further Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted). The Vaccination Policy also notes that persons who do not comply may be terminated. Id. ¶ 31.
Because neither of Plaintiffs is vaccinated, each submitted a Notification of Vaccination Exemption (“Notification”) by Affidavit to the People Relations team at the FRBNY; Gardner-Alfred submitted her Notification on or about August 9, 2021, and Diaz submitted her Notification on or about September 1, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. Each participated in a religious exemption interview conducted by the People Relations Team and answered questions about her religious views as well as her responsibilities and interactions with other individuals during a typical workday. Id. ¶ 35. On or about October 1, 2021, Plaintiffs were individually notified that Defendant had temporarily granted their request. Id. ¶ 36.
Defendant subsequently announced an official return to work date of January 10, 2022. Id. ¶ 37. On or about November 29, 2021, Defendant informed each Plaintiff by email that “as of January 7, 2022, your accommodation exempting you from the [FRBNY]'s mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy will end.” Id. ¶ 41 (citation omitted). The email further warned that “if you decide not to become vaccinated, by on or about January 7, 2022, you will receive additional information on your departure from the Bank ....” Id. As for their religious accommodation requests, the Defendant stated it had reassessed Id. ¶ 42 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs were surprised by this reasoning as they had been able to satisfactorily perform their job functions remotely and, even prior to the remote work policy, had not regularly interacted with visitors to the building. Id. ¶ 45.
Despite denying Plaintiffs' religious accommodation, the FRBNY approved exemptions for other employees for medical and religious reasons. Id. ¶ 46. For example, Defendant approved a religious accommodation for at least one executive assistant. That individual supports one senior vice president and a team comprised of multiple individuals, whereas Plaintiffs each support only one EVP. Id. Defendant has articulated no reason for granting the request for religious accommodation for certain individuals and not others. Id. Defendant has also implemented a procedure to accommodate those individuals; that procedure involves requiring the employees to submit weekly negative COVID-19 tests. Id. ¶ 49. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant could have accommodated their requests for accommodations, including by requiring testing to determine infection status or temperature checks. Id. ¶ 52.
Plaintiffs attempted to obtain additional information from Defendant about why their religious accommodation requests had been denied. Id. ¶ 53. Defendant noted that it could not reasonably accommodate Plaintiffs due to some of their essential job functions which required them to be physically at the FRNBY's premises. Id. ¶¶ 54-55. Defendant also noted that it could not reasonably accommodate Plaintiffs onsite because doing so would create increased safety risks for the FRNBY and its employees. Id. ¶ 56.
Because Plaintiffs continued to refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, their employment at the FRBNY was terminated on March 14, 2022. Id. ¶ 68.
On February 23, 2022, Plaintiffs (who at that time were still employed by the FRBNY) commenced actions in New York State Supreme Court against the Defendant. Dkt. No. 1-1. Plaintiffs sought an immediate injunction barring Defendant from firing them (the “TRO”). Id. at 13, 39. That same day, Justice Frank of the New York State Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs an ex parte restraining order directing the FRBNY to show cause on March 7, 2022, why Plaintiffs should not be granted a permanent injunction restraining the FRBNY from firing Plaintiffs. Id. at 4-5.
To continue reading
Request your trial