FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURT
`OF KINGS
`
`OF THE STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`JAMES
`
`FARAH,
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`-against-
`
`OF NEW YORK,
`THE CITY
`ET AL.,
`DEPARTMENT,
`
`THE NEW YORK CITY
`
`POLICE
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`522405/2023
`
`MEMORANDUM
`LAW
`
`OF
`
`Jimmy
`
`Wagner,
`
`Esq.,
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`for Plaintiff,
`
`JAMES
`
`FARAH,
`
`in the
`
`above-captioned
`
`matter,
`
`submits
`
`this Memorandum
`
`of Law in support
`
`of
`
`the Motion
`
`to Re-Argue.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`OF LAW IN SUPPORT
`OF PLAINTIFF'S
`ARGUMENT
`
`MOTION
`
`FOR RE-
`
`QUESTIONS
`
`PRESENTED
`
`ON RE-ARGUMENT
`
`it proper
`
`for
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`to convert
`
`this
`
`Summons
`
`and Complaint
`
`with
`
`10
`
`1.
`
`Was
`
`different
`
`causes
`
`of actions
`
`into
`
`an Article
`
`78 proceeding,
`
`combine
`
`all Defendants
`
`and
`
`then
`
`dismiss
`
`the
`
`case
`
`on the
`
`four month
`
`Article
`
`78 statute
`
`of
`
`together,
`
`limitations?
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`2.
`
`Did
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`correctly
`
`rule
`
`that
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to state
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`for
`
`failure
`
`to accommodate
`
`because
`
`of
`
`religious
`
`discrimination
`
`pursuant
`
`to New York
`
`City Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law,
`
`New York
`
`Administrative
`
`Code
`
`§8-107(3)?
`
`1 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`3.
`
`Did
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`correctly
`
`rule
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to state
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`for
`
`failure
`
`to engage
`
`in cooperative
`
`dialogue
`
`pursuant
`
`to New York
`
`City
`
`Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law,
`
`see New York
`
`City Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law,
`
`New York
`
`Administrative
`
`Code
`
`§ 8-
`
`107(28)(a)?
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`4.
`
`Did
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`correctly
`
`rule
`
`that
`
`the Defendants
`
`are not
`
`required
`
`to properly
`
`apply
`
`the
`
`correct
`
`legal
`
`standard
`
`when
`
`judging
`
`religious
`
`accommodations?
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`5.
`
`Did
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`correctly
`
`rule
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is not
`
`entitled
`
`to a cause
`
`of action
`
`violation
`
`of
`
`Clause
`
`under
`
`the New York
`
`State
`
`Cause
`
`of Action?
`
`for
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`6.
`
`Was
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court's
`
`decision
`
`correct
`
`in ruling
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`is not
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`pursue
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`under
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause
`
`due
`
`to the
`
`availability
`
`of
`
`alternative
`
`legal
`
`remedies?
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`7.
`
`Did
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`correctly
`
`rule
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to state
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`for
`
`constructive
`
`termination?
`
`Answer:
`
`Yes
`
`8.
`
`Did
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`correctly
`
`rule
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to state
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`for
`
`"aiding
`
`and
`
`abetting"
`
`pursuant
`
`to, New York
`
`City
`
`Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law,
`
`New York
`
`Administrative
`
`Code
`
`§ 8-107(6)?
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`2 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`9.
`
`Did
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`correctly
`
`rule
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to state
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`for
`
`intentional
`
`infliction
`
`of emotional
`
`distress?
`
`Answer:
`
`No
`
`PRELIMINARY
`
`STATEMENT
`
`The
`
`underlying
`
`action
`
`at
`
`the
`
`center
`
`of
`
`this
`
`dispute
`
`involves
`
`the Plaintiff's
`
`request
`
`for
`
`a
`
`religious
`
`accommodation
`
`in response
`
`to the
`
`vaccine
`
`mandate
`
`implemented
`
`in October
`
`2021.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`James
`
`Farah
`
`("Mr.
`
`Farah"),
`
`was
`
`treated
`
`differently
`
`and
`
`for
`
`his
`
`religious
`
`adversely
`
`beliefs
`
`and was
`
`forced
`
`to violate
`
`these
`
`beliefs,
`
`by
`
`receiving
`
`the COVID-19
`
`vaccine,
`
`in order
`
`to
`
`retain
`
`his
`
`employment.
`
`Defendant's
`
`denial
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`request
`
`for
`
`religious
`
`accommodation
`
`on
`
`December
`
`14, 2021,
`
`occurred
`
`without
`
`any
`
`cooperative
`
`dialogue,
`
`and
`
`failed
`
`to provide
`
`any
`
`legal
`
`reasoning
`
`or basis
`
`for
`
`its denial
`
`even
`
`though
`
`the
`
`law demands
`
`every
`
`religious
`
`accomodation
`
`shall
`
`Defendant
`
`also
`
`failed
`
`to provide
`
`support
`
`for
`
`the
`
`contention
`
`that
`
`an
`
`be granted.
`
`any
`
`providing
`
`accommodation
`
`would
`
`create
`
`an undue
`
`hardship
`
`for
`
`the City
`
`of New York
`
`or any
`
`of
`
`the
`
`other
`
`Defendants.
`
`The
`
`law requires
`
`that
`
`an accommodation
`
`"shall"
`
`be granted
`
`and
`
`necessitates
`
`the
`
`development
`
`of a "new
`
`body
`
`of
`
`case
`
`law,"
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`judges
`
`relying
`
`on outdated
`
`and
`
`inapplicable
`
`precedents.
`
`The City
`
`Council
`
`explicitly
`
`calls
`
`for
`
`judges
`
`to establish
`
`a body
`
`of
`
`case
`
`law that
`
`supports
`
`employees'
`
`rights.
`
`legal
`
`on the
`
`lawfulness
`
`of
`
`denial
`
`of
`
`The Courts
`
`decision
`
`lacks
`
`reasoning
`
`the Defendants
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`s accommodation
`
`request
`
`and
`
`the
`
`subsequent
`
`discrimination
`
`because:
`
`the
`
`1)
`
`Defendants
`
`determination
`
`should
`
`have
`
`assessed
`
`whether
`
`providing
`
`an accommodation
`
`would
`
`pose
`
`an undue
`
`burden
`
`on the Defendant,
`
`FDNY,
`
`and whether
`
`the
`
`denial
`
`was motivated
`
`by
`
`religious
`
`discrimination;
`
`and
`
`2)
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court
`
`failed
`
`to adequately
`
`evaluate
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`Citywide
`
`Panel
`
`adhered
`
`to the
`
`standards
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in the New York
`
`City
`
`Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law
`
`3 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`(NYCHRL)
`
`because
`
`the
`
`law
`
`state
`
`every
`
`religious
`
`accomodation
`
`shall
`
`be granted
`
`and
`
`the
`
`Defendants
`
`failed
`
`to follow
`
`the
`
`standards
`
`concerning
`
`cooperative
`
`dialogue.
`
`The
`
`Supreme
`
`Court's
`
`rulings
`
`on these matters,
`
`including
`
`the
`
`causes
`
`of action
`
`for
`
`aiding
`
`and
`
`abetting,
`
`intentional
`
`infliction
`
`of emotional
`
`distress,
`
`violation
`
`of
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause
`
`of
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution,
`
`as well
`
`as requests
`
`for
`
`attorney's
`
`fees
`
`and
`
`declaratory
`
`judgment,
`
`were
`
`all
`
`legal
`
`fundamentally
`
`flawed
`
`in their
`
`reasoning.
`
`A court
`
`must
`
`follow
`
`the
`
`law,
`
`not
`
`ignore
`
`black
`
`letter
`
`law.
`
`Consequently,
`
`these
`
`errors
`
`necessitate
`
`that
`
`the
`
`decision
`
`be reversed.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`OF FACTS
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`James
`
`Farah
`
`was
`
`a police
`
`officer
`
`for
`
`the New York
`
`Police
`
`Department
`
`from
`
`July
`
`1, 2004,
`
`at which
`
`time
`
`he was
`
`forced
`
`to resign.
`
`In the
`
`course
`
`of over
`
`fifteen
`
`(15)
`
`years
`
`of employment,
`
`the NYPD made
`
`no mention
`
`of
`
`the
`
`requirement
`
`to obtain
`
`any
`
`vaccines
`
`as a
`
`condition
`
`of employment.
`
`On October
`
`20,
`
`2021,
`
`the Commissioner
`
`of
`
`the Department
`
`of Health
`
`and Mental
`
`Hygiene
`
`("DHMH")
`
`announced
`
`a "Vaccine
`
`Only"
`
`mandate
`
`for City
`
`of New York
`
`Employees
`
`[R.
`
`]. One
`
`day
`
`after
`
`the
`
`issuance
`
`of
`
`the City
`
`Order,
`
`on October
`
`21,
`
`2021,
`
`the New
`
`York
`
`City
`
`Department
`
`of Citywide
`
`Administrative
`
`Services
`
`("DCAS")
`
`issued
`
`guidance
`
`in
`
`connection
`
`with
`
`the City
`
`Order,
`
`which
`
`included
`
`the
`
`"FAQ
`
`on New York
`
`City
`
`Employees
`
`Mandate,"
`
`entitled
`
`for
`
`a Reasonable
`
`Accommodation
`
`from
`
`Vaccine
`
`and
`
`a document
`
`"Applying
`
`the Covid-19
`
`Vaccine
`
`Mandate"
`
`(collectively,
`
`"the Guidelines").
`
`The
`
`guidelines
`
`state
`
`that
`
`a
`
`person
`
`with
`
`"a sincerely
`
`held
`
`religious,
`
`moral
`
`or ethical
`
`belief
`
`may
`
`be a basis
`
`for
`
`a religious
`
`accommodation."
`
`this
`
`requirement.").
`
`("Employees
`
`may
`
`apply
`
`for
`
`a Reasonable
`
`Accommodation
`
`to be exempt
`
`from
`
`On or around
`
`October
`
`26,
`
`2021,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`the NYPD accommodate
`
`his
`
`religious
`
`observance
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to the
`
`vaccine.
`
`At
`
`no point
`
`in time
`
`prior
`
`to the Defendant's
`
`4 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`denial
`
`did
`
`anyone
`
`engage
`
`Mr.
`
`Farah
`
`about
`
`a reasonable
`
`accommodation
`
`or attempt
`
`to assess
`
`his
`
`religious
`
`needs.
`
`Instead,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`told
`
`without
`
`any
`
`good
`
`faith
`
`process
`
`at all
`
`that
`
`his
`
`request
`
`was
`
`being
`
`denied.
`
`This
`
`caused
`
`a great
`
`deal
`
`of
`
`confusion
`
`and
`
`distress
`
`for Plaintiff
`
`because
`
`there
`
`were
`
`other
`
`employees
`
`who
`
`worked
`
`for NYPD
`
`who
`
`were
`
`provided
`
`accommodations.
`
`Were
`
`the
`
`based
`
`based
`
`on the NYC Mayor
`
`or was
`
`there
`
`accommodations
`
`being
`
`granted
`
`on rank,
`
`friendship,
`
`a fair
`
`process
`
`in place
`
`to determine
`
`the
`
`accommodations.
`
`Defendant
`
`gave
`
`no explanation
`
`how
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`specifically,
`
`could
`
`cause
`
`some
`
`undue
`
`hardship
`
`to NYPD,
`
`and why
`
`he was
`
`not
`
`being
`
`accommodated
`
`for
`
`his
`
`religious
`
`beliefs,
`
`but
`
`his
`
`co-workers
`
`were.
`
`Being
`
`denied
`
`an opportunity
`
`to
`
`examine
`
`defendants
`
`and
`
`granted
`
`discovery
`
`as to defendants,
`
`all
`
`the
`
`factual
`
`findings
`
`of
`
`the Court
`
`at
`
`this
`
`stage
`
`to prove
`
`his
`
`case
`
`state
`
`the
`
`are wildly
`
`speculative
`
`and
`
`it
`
`is not Plaintiff's
`
`burden
`
`only
`
`claim
`
`properly,
`
`which
`
`he did.
`
`For
`
`all
`
`the
`
`reasons
`
`stated
`
`in this memorandum
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`disputes
`
`each
`
`and
`
`every
`
`of
`
`Defendant's
`
`arguments
`
`and
`
`the Decision
`
`and Order
`
`of
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court.
`
`ARGUMENT
`POINT
`
`I
`
`A.
`
`Did
`and
`
`the
`then
`
`Supreme
`dismiss
`
`Court
`the
`
`properly
`a four
`on
`
`case
`
`convert
`month
`
`into
`this
`proceeding
`limitations?
`of
`statute
`
`an Article
`
`78
`
`An article
`
`78 proceeding
`
`does
`
`not
`
`handle
`
`discrimination
`
`claims
`
`under
`
`the New York
`
`State Human
`
`Rights
`
`or
`
`the New York
`
`Human
`
`Rights
`
`State Constitution,
`
`the New York
`
`Law,
`
`City
`
`Law.
`
`In addition,
`
`Article
`
`78 proceedings
`
`cannot
`
`provide
`
`Plaintiff
`
`damages
`
`for
`
`the
`
`discrimination
`
`he suffered
`
`at
`
`the
`
`hands
`
`of his
`
`government
`
`employer.
`
`Lastly,
`
`CPLR
`
`103(c)
`
`does
`
`not
`
`give
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`any
`
`authority
`
`to convert
`
`a pleading
`
`into
`
`a special
`
`proceeding
`
`to then
`
`dismiss
`
`the
`
`proceeding.
`
`The Court
`
`may
`
`only
`
`convert
`
`an action
`
`so that
`
`it
`
`"shall
`
`not
`
`be
`
`dismissed"
`
`not
`
`so it
`
`can
`
`dismiss
`
`it on statute
`
`of
`
`limitations.
`
`5 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`Improper
`
`(c)
`proceeding
`but
`court
`the
`court
`finds
`special
`payment
`
`If a court
`form.
`has
`be dismissed
`not
`shall
`shall make
`whatever
`it appropriate
`in the
`or vice-versa,
`costs
`
`and
`
`proceeding,
`of
`fees
`
`obtained
`
`solely
`order
`interests
`upon
`
`it
`
`jurisdiction
`because
`is required
`of
`such
`
`justice,
`terms
`
`over
`the
`is not
`brought
`for
`its proper
`it may
`convert
`as may
`be just,
`
`a civil
`parties,
`in the
`proper
`prosecution.
`a motion
`
`judicial
`
`If
`
`form,
`the
`a
`
`into
`the
`
`including
`
`N.Y.
`
`CPLR
`
`103
`
`It
`
`is peculiar
`
`that
`
`the Courts
`
`decision
`
`relies
`
`on Foy
`
`v. Schechter,
`
`1 NY2d
`
`604
`
`[1956],
`
`particularly
`
`as it
`
`involves
`
`cherry-picking
`
`a quote
`
`from
`
`a case
`
`that
`
`is not
`
`applicable
`
`to the
`
`current
`
`context.
`
`No one
`
`is challenging
`
`an individual
`
`agency
`
`decision.
`
`The Complaint
`
`is clearly
`
`for
`
`religious
`
`discrimination
`
`in that
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`enacted
`
`a "condition
`
`of
`
`employment"
`
`or
`
`"work
`
`rule"
`
`which
`
`required
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`to violate
`
`his
`
`religion
`
`to keep
`
`his
`
`job.
`
`Forget
`
`the
`
`inapplicable
`
`1956
`
`case which
`
`has no bearing
`
`on this
`
`proceeding.
`
`New York
`
`City Human
`
`Rights
`
`law says,
`
`every
`
`employer
`
`"shall"
`
`grant
`
`a reasonable
`
`accommodation:
`
`3.
`
`Employment;
`
`religious
`
`observance.
`
`be an unlawful
`It shall
`(a)
`thereof
`or agent
`employee
`employment
`such
`person
`
`retaining
`require
`
`day
`make
`
`or an
`an employer
`for
`practice
`discriminatory
`of obtaining
`as a condition
`a person
`to impose
`upon
`which
`would
`compliance
`with
`terms
`or conditions,
`any
`creed
`or
`such
`a practice
`person's
`or
`forego
`to violate,
`of,
`particular
`or days
`observance
`of any
`limited
`to the
`not
`but
`day
`religion,
`including
`religious
`of any
`or holy
`or
`observance
`the
`thereof
`as a sabbath
`portion
`or any
`accommodation
`employer
`reasonable
`the
`shall
`or usage,
`and
`custom
`of such
`person
`needs
`the
`religious
`
`or
`
`to
`
`The
`
`failure
`
`of
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`to grant
`
`the
`
`reasonable
`
`accomodation
`
`is the
`
`prima
`
`facia
`
`evidence
`
`of discrimination.
`
`There
`
`is no rebuttal
`
`presumption,
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`enganged
`
`in
`
`discrimination.
`
`The
`
`Plaintiff
`
`had
`
`a legal
`
`right
`
`to an accomodation
`
`that SHALL
`
`be granted.
`
`The
`
`denial
`
`of
`
`that
`
`right
`
`is an injury.
`
`granted
`
`person
`"A
`or protected
`New York
`
`is aggrieved
`chapters
`Human
`
`by
`City
`
`person's
`that
`if
`even
`title."
`this
`1 or 6 of
`Law §8-502(h)(2).
`Rights
`
`only
`
`injury
`
`is the
`
`deprivation
`
`of a right
`
`6 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`The Court's
`
`reliance
`
`on Metropolitan
`
`Museum
`
`Historic
`
`District
`
`Coalition
`
`v De
`
`Montebello,
`
`20 AD3d
`
`28
`
`[1st Dept
`
`2005]
`
`is just
`
`as bizarre
`
`as this
`
`case
`
`has
`
`nothing
`
`to do with
`
`employment
`
`or discrimination.
`
`The Court's
`
`misplaced
`
`efforts
`
`to limit
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`discrimination
`
`claims
`
`to a four month
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`is without
`
`merit
`
`and
`
`ignored
`
`Second
`
`Dept.
`
`Juris
`
`prudence=.
`
`A very
`
`recent
`
`Second
`
`Circuit
`
`decision
`
`is highly
`
`instructive
`
`on this
`
`issue, Whitfield
`
`v. City
`
`of New York
`
`[2d Cir, Mar.
`
`15, 2024,
`
`No.
`
`22-412],
`
`addressed
`
`the
`
`distinction
`
`between
`
`Article
`
`78
`
`proceedings
`
`and
`
`discrimination
`
`proceedings.
`
`In Whitfield,
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`initially
`
`pursued
`
`an
`
`Article
`
`78 proceeding,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`denied.
`
`However,
`
`he subsequently
`
`filed
`
`a discrimination
`
`the Second
`
`Circuit
`
`allowed
`
`to proceed:
`
`lawsuit,
`
`which
`
`The New York
`Parker
`v. Blauvelt
`think
`it can't
`reasonably
`under
`not
`does
`preclude,
`claim
`on the
`same
`based
`
`of Appeals
`Court
`Volunteer
`Fire
`be disputed
`the
`doctrine
`set of
`facts.
`
`has expressed
`Co.,93
`N.Y.2d
`that
`a judgment
`of
`res judicata,
`
`its agreement
`348
`343,
`in a
`a later
`
`with
`(1999).
`"pure"
`
`Davidson.
`
`See
`
`we
`Accordingly,
`Article
`78 proceeding
`section
`damages
`
`1983
`
`Whitfield
`
`v City
`
`of New York,
`
`*27
`
`[2d Cir, Mar.
`
`15, 2024,
`
`No.
`
`22-412]
`
`Clearly
`
`if a party
`
`bring
`
`an Article
`
`78 which
`
`is subsequently
`
`denied
`
`the
`
`party
`
`reserves
`
`their
`
`right
`
`to bring
`
`a discrimination
`
`claim,
`
`here
`
`our Plaintiff
`
`never
`
`brought
`
`an Article
`
`78,
`
`so
`
`therefore,
`
`he cannot
`
`be precluded
`
`from
`
`his
`
`discrimination
`
`claims
`
`and
`
`discrimination
`
`claims
`
`have
`
`a three
`
`year
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations.
`
`POINT
`
`II
`
`B.
`
`Stated
`Plaintiff
`Accommodation
`
`a Viable
`and
`
`Cause
`Failure
`
`of Action
`to Engage
`
`the Denial
`for
`in Cooperative
`
`of A Reasonable
`Dialogue.
`
`The
`
`Supreme
`
`Court
`
`has
`
`stated
`
`regarding
`
`the Appellant's
`
`First
`
`and Second
`
`Cause
`
`of
`
`Action,
`
`which
`
`concern
`
`the Defendant's
`
`failure
`
`to accommodate
`
`and
`
`failure
`
`to engage
`
`in
`
`7 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`cooperative
`
`dialogue
`
`respectively,
`
`that
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`has not
`
`alleged
`
`facts
`
`sufficient
`
`to show
`
`that
`
`the City's
`
`process
`
`for
`
`resolving
`
`accommodation
`
`requests
`
`related
`
`to the
`
`vaccine
`
`mandate
`
`fell
`
`short
`
`of
`
`the
`
`requirements
`
`of
`
`the City
`
`Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law (CHRL).
`
`Therefore,
`
`his
`
`claims
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`sustained.
`
`The Court's
`
`ruling
`
`is incorrect
`
`not
`
`only
`
`because
`
`it
`
`failed
`
`to acknowledge
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Defendant,
`
`NYPD,
`
`did
`
`not
`
`engage
`
`in any
`
`cooperative
`
`dialogue,
`
`to city
`
`statute
`
`requirements,
`
`but
`
`also
`
`because
`
`it did
`
`not
`
`apply
`
`the
`
`correct
`
`standard
`
`for
`
`denying
`
`an
`
`accommodation,
`
`which
`
`necessitates
`
`a demonstration
`
`of
`
`"undue
`
`burden."
`
`contrary
`
`The CHRL
`
`makes
`
`it an "unlawful
`
`discriminatory
`
`practice
`
`for
`
`an employer
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. to refuse
`
`or
`
`otherwise
`
`fail
`
`to engage
`
`in a cooperative
`
`dialogue
`
`within
`
`a reasonable
`
`time
`
`with
`
`a person
`
`who
`
`has
`
`requested
`
`an accommodation
`
`or who
`
`the
`
`covered
`
`entity
`
`has notice
`
`may
`
`require
`
`such
`
`an
`
`accommodation"
`
`on an employee's
`
`"religious
`
`needs."
`
`See
`
`including
`
`an accommodation
`
`based
`
`§
`
`8-107[28][a][1].
`
`. It
`
`further
`
`elaborates
`
`in Administrative
`
`Code,
`
`§ 8-107(3)(b),
`
`that
`
`a "reasonable
`
`accommodation"
`
`for
`
`an employee's
`
`or prospective
`
`employee's
`
`religious
`
`observance
`
`or practice
`
`should
`
`not
`
`cause
`
`undue
`
`hardship
`
`in the
`
`conduct
`
`of
`
`the
`
`employer's
`
`business.
`
`The
`
`employer
`
`shall
`
`have
`
`the
`
`burden
`
`of proof
`
`to show
`
`such
`
`undue
`
`hardship.
`
`"Undue
`
`Hardship"
`
`as used
`
`in this
`
`subdivision
`
`shall mean
`
`an accommodation
`
`requiring
`
`significant
`
`expense
`
`or difficulty
`
`(including
`
`operation
`
`of
`
`the workplace
`
`or a violation
`
`of a
`
`a significant
`
`interference
`
`with
`
`the
`
`safe
`
`or efficient
`
`bond
`
`fide
`
`seniority
`
`system).
`
`(emphasis
`
`added).
`
`The Defendants
`
`own
`
`paperwork
`
`said
`
`there
`
`was
`
`an accomodation
`
`that was
`
`not
`
`an undue
`
`hardship
`
`(R.
`
`). At
`
`this
`
`pre-answer
`
`stage,
`
`it
`
`is unjustified
`
`for
`
`the Court
`
`to state
`
`that
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`could
`
`not
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`the NYPD
`
`would
`
`not
`
`suffer
`
`an undue
`
`hardship,
`
`especially
`
`when
`
`the
`
`Defendants
`
`have
`
`provided
`
`paperwork
`
`that
`
`supports
`
`the Plaintiff's
`
`position.
`
`The
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`8 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`alleged
`
`facts
`
`indicating
`
`that
`
`individuals
`
`who
`
`applied
`
`for
`
`a religious
`
`accommodation
`
`were
`
`treated
`
`differently
`
`than
`
`those
`
`who
`
`sought
`
`other
`
`types
`
`of accommodations.
`
`The Court's
`
`reliance
`
`on St. Hillaire
`
`v. Montefiore
`
`Med.
`
`Ctr.
`
`[SDNY,
`
`Jan.
`
`16, 2024,
`
`23-
`
`CV-4763
`
`(PMH)],
`
`is inapplicable
`
`because
`
`the Court
`
`did
`
`not
`
`rule
`
`on a single
`
`New York
`
`State
`
`law
`
`claim.
`
`It
`
`the
`
`court
`
`relies
`
`that
`
`fails
`
`to address
`
`state
`
`is perplexing
`
`why
`
`on a precedent
`
`law claims,
`
`given
`
`the
`
`significant
`
`differences
`
`between
`
`Federal,
`
`New York
`
`State,
`
`and New York
`
`City
`
`standards.
`
`This
`
`reliance
`
`is particularly
`
`problematic
`
`when
`
`the
`
`applicable
`
`local
`
`and
`
`state
`
`laws
`
`might
`
`dictate
`
`outcomes
`
`divergent
`
`from
`
`those
`
`suggested
`
`by
`
`federal
`
`case
`
`law.
`
`By
`
`the
`
`plain
`
`meaning
`
`of
`
`the
`
`statute,
`
`the
`
`requirement
`
`for
`
`an employer
`
`to engage
`
`in a
`
`cooperative
`
`dialogue
`
`for
`
`accommodation"
`
`is mandatory
`
`"a person
`
`who
`
`has
`
`requested
`
`an
`
`for
`
`"religious
`
`needs."
`
`Defendant
`
`is not
`
`permitted
`
`under
`
`the CHRL
`
`to decide
`
`which
`
`applicants
`
`require
`
`a cooperative
`
`dialogue
`
`and which
`
`do not.
`
`Hosking
`
`v. Memorial
`
`Sloan-Kettering
`
`Cancer
`
`Center,
`
`186 A.D.3d
`
`58 (2020);
`
`Gordon
`
`v. Consolidated
`
`Edison
`
`Inc.,
`
`190 A.D.3d
`
`639
`
`(2021).
`
`In
`
`fact,
`
`the
`
`law requires
`
`the Defendant
`
`use the
`
`dialogue
`
`process
`
`to address
`
`any
`
`questions
`
`or
`
`employee's
`
`religious
`
`needs
`
`prior
`
`a determination
`
`on
`
`concerns
`
`it may
`
`have
`
`about
`
`the
`
`to making
`
`the
`
`employee's
`
`request:
`
`The
`
`requesting
`or
`right
`the
`the
`covered
`or
`
`accommodation
`would
`no reasonable
`determination
`that
`essential
`requisites
`the
`an accommodation
`to satisfy
`the
`after
`be made
`parties
`rights
`in question,
`only
`may
`in a cooperative
`attempted
`to engage,
`has
`entity
`
`the
`enable
`of a job
`have
`dialogue.
`
`person
`or enjoy
`engaged,
`
`Admin.
`
`Code
`
`§ 8-107(28)(e)
`
`1.
`
`Undue
`
`Burden
`
`In denying
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`accommodation,
`
`the Defendant
`
`was
`
`required
`
`to demonstrate
`
`that
`
`it
`
`was
`
`precluded
`
`from
`
`providing
`
`such
`
`an accommodation
`
`because
`
`it would
`
`create
`
`an undue
`
`burden.
`
`The
`
`Supreme
`
`Court's
`
`position
`
`is in error
`
`because
`
`it does
`
`not
`
`address
`
`that
`
`the Citywide
`
`Panel
`
`used
`
`9 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`the wrong
`
`standard
`
`-
`
`the
`
`de minimis
`
`standard
`
`-
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`the
`
`proper
`
`CHRL
`
`standard
`
`[R.
`
`].
`
`The Defendant
`
`asserts
`
`"this
`
`is a false
`
`contention"
`
`[R.
`
`] but
`
`it
`
`is not.
`
`In the Affirmation
`
`of Eric
`
`Eichenholtz,
`
`the Chief
`
`Assistant
`
`Corporation
`
`Counsel
`
`for Employment
`
`Policy
`
`and
`
`Litigation
`
`within
`
`the New York
`
`City
`
`Office
`
`of Corporation
`
`Counsel,
`
`it
`
`is specifically
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`in
`
`considering
`
`requests
`
`for
`
`religious
`
`accommodations,
`
`the Citywide
`
`Panel
`
`assesses
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`accommodation
`
`would
`
`present
`
`an undue
`
`hardship
`
`on City
`
`operations.
`
`This
`
`assessment
`
`is based
`
`on whether
`
`it would
`
`"bear
`
`more
`
`than
`
`a de minis
`
`or a minimal
`
`cost
`
`to accommodate
`
`an
`
`employee's
`
`religious
`
`belief"
`
`[R.
`
`].
`
`Under
`
`the CHRL,
`
`an undue
`
`hardship
`
`defense
`
`must
`
`establish
`
`that
`
`the Plaintiff's
`
`request
`
`creates
`
`a more
`
`than
`
`burden
`
`and
`
`de minimis
`
`requires
`
`a showing
`
`of
`
`"significant
`
`expense
`
`or
`
`difficulty."
`
`Litzman
`
`v. New York
`
`City
`
`Police
`
`Dep't,
`
`No.
`
`12 CIV.
`
`4681
`
`HB,
`
`2013 WL 6049066
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`Nov.
`
`15, 2013).
`
`In Litzman
`
`v. New York
`
`City
`
`Police
`
`Dep't,
`
`Defendants
`
`asserted
`
`that
`
`accommodating
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s request
`
`to keep
`
`his
`
`beard
`
`would
`
`compromise
`
`the NYPD's
`
`goal
`
`of
`
`eventually
`
`achieving
`
`100% CBRN
`
`certification
`
`and
`
`reduce
`
`the NYPD's
`
`flexibility
`
`and
`
`efficiency
`
`to deploy
`
`officers
`
`during
`
`an emergency.
`
`The Court
`
`found
`
`that with
`
`respect
`
`to the
`
`requirements
`
`under
`
`the CHRL,
`
`the New York
`
`City
`
`Police
`
`Department
`
`did
`
`not meet
`
`the
`
`rigorous
`
`definition
`
`of
`
`an employer's
`
`"undue
`
`hardship"
`
`as "an
`
`accommodation
`
`requiring
`
`significant
`
`expense
`
`or
`
`difficulty"
`
`under
`
`the
`
`local
`
`statute:
`
`with
`higher
`
`for
`judgment
`Summary
`Defendants
`claim
`because
`hardship"
`under
`the City
`NYCHRL
`claims
`"analyze
`state
`law claims,
`construing
`discrimination
`plaintiffs,
`.... even
`if
`the
`possible
`...."
`Mihalik
`law
`state
`109
`(2d Cir.2013)
`Defendants
`have
`
`and
`the
`
`that
`
`be granted
`must
`the Plaintiff
`to meet
`the
`failed
`have
`Law.
`The
`Second
`Circuit
`and
`separately
`the NYCHRL's
`extent
`that
`to the
`conduct
`challenged
`v. Credit
`Agricole
`internal
`(citations
`cost
`shown
`
`to the NYCHRL
`respect
`of
`"undue
`burden
`instructed
`courts
`from
`federal
`any
`in favor
`is reasonably
`federal
`under
`715
`F.3d
`Inc.,
`Although
`is more
`
`to
`and
`
`of
`
`and
`
`102,
`
`than
`
`recently
`independently
`provisions
`broadly
`a construction
`such
`is not
`actionable
`N Am.,
`Cheuvreux
`omitted).
`quotations
`of accommodation
`
`10 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`not
`
`minimal
`have
`absence
`individuals
`conclude
`Plaintiff
`who
`those
`qualify
`44. Accordingly,
`claim.
`
`summary
`
`as discussed
`lost
`be some
`would
`there
`because
`efficiency,
`difficulty."
`there
`be "significant
`that
`shown
`would
`expense
`or
`of any
`about
`the
`costs
`of accommodation
`and
`details
`who may
`seek
`a similar
`the Court
`accommodation,
`would
`that
`accrue
`significant
`expense
`or
`Defendants
`difficulty
`30% of NYPD officers
`not CBRN certified
`who
`joined
`are
`the
`for
`a medical
`exemption
`Order
`pursuant
`to Operations
`on the NYCHRL
`judgment
`for Plaintiff
`is granted
`
`above,
`
`other
`cannot
`
`they
`the
`
`In
`
`if
`or
`
`No.
`
`Litzman
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`v. New York
`Nov.
`
`City
`15, 2013)
`
`Police
`
`Dep't,
`
`No.
`
`12 CIV.
`
`4681
`
`HB,
`
`2013 WL 6049066,
`
`at
`
`*6-7
`
`The
`
`court's
`
`reliance
`
`on case
`
`decisions
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`directly
`
`on statutory
`
`law raises
`
`concerns
`
`about
`
`its adherence
`
`to the
`
`fundamental
`
`judicial
`
`principle
`
`that
`
`the
`
`law
`
`should
`
`be the
`
`primary
`
`guide
`
`in legal
`
`decision-making.
`
`This
`
`approach
`
`seems
`
`particularly
`
`questionable
`
`given
`
`the Court
`
`of
`
`Appeals'
`
`recent
`
`emphasis
`
`on the
`
`importance
`
`of
`
`following
`
`statutory
`
`requirements
`
`and
`
`the
`
`need
`
`for
`
`judges
`
`to strictly
`
`adhere
`
`to the
`
`law:
`
`"During
`
`the most
`
`difficult
`
`and
`
`trying
`
`of
`
`times,
`
`consistent
`
`enforcement
`
`and
`
`strict
`
`adherence
`
`to legislative
`
`judgments
`
`should
`
`be reinforced
`
`undermined."
`
`- not
`
`[2020].
`
`Seawright
`
`v Bd.
`
`of Elections
`
`in the City
`
`of N.Y,
`
`35 NY3d
`
`227,
`
`235
`
`This
`
`Court's
`
`decision
`
`is neither
`
`consistent
`
`with
`
`the
`
`guidance
`
`on cooperative
`
`dialogue
`
`under
`
`CHRL,
`
`nor
`
`is it
`
`in alignment
`
`with
`
`the City's
`
`own
`
`guidance
`
`as to how to evaluate
`
`accommodation
`
`requests.
`
`Again,
`
`in Eric
`
`Eichenholtz's
`
`Affirmation,
`
`he specifically
`
`states
`
`the
`
`City
`
`of New York
`
`applied
`
`the wrong
`
`standard:
`
`"In
`
`assessing
`
`whether
`
`a requested
`
`religious
`
`accommodation
`
`presents
`
`an undue
`
`hardship,
`
`the Citywide
`
`panel
`
`considers
`
`the particular
`
`facts
`
`of
`
`each
`
`appeal
`
`and
`
`examines,
`
`for
`
`example,
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`employee
`
`requesting
`
`a religious
`
`accommodation
`
`to a COVID-19
`
`vaccination
`
`requirement
`
`works
`
`outdoors
`
`or
`
`indoors,
`
`works
`
`in a
`
`solitary
`
`public."
`
`or group
`
`work
`
`setting,
`
`or has
`
`close
`
`contact
`
`with
`
`other
`
`employees
`
`or members
`
`of
`
`the
`
`[R.
`
`]
`
`11 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`The
`
`law is very
`
`clear:
`
`simply
`
`stating
`
`there
`
`is an undue
`
`hardship
`
`is not
`
`adequate.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`the City
`
`Defendant
`
`must
`
`explain
`
`the
`
`nature
`
`and
`
`scope
`
`of
`
`the
`
`hardship
`
`and why
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`accommodation
`
`request
`
`specifically
`
`creates
`
`this
`
`hardship.
`
`There
`
`is a long
`
`line
`
`of
`
`cases
`
`where
`
`the Courts
`
`have
`
`found
`
`discrimination
`
`because
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`failed
`
`to provide
`
`an
`
`accommodation
`
`to a Plaintiff.
`
`Jacobsen
`
`v. New York
`
`Health
`
`City
`
`& Hosps.
`
`Corp.,
`
`22 N.Y.3d
`
`824,
`
`835
`
`(2014)
`
`("un-like
`
`the State
`
`HRL,
`
`the City HRL
`
`places
`
`the
`
`burden
`
`on the
`
`employer
`
`to
`
`show
`
`the
`
`unavailability
`
`of any
`
`safe
`
`and
`
`reasonable
`
`accommodation
`
`and
`
`to show
`
`that
`
`any
`
`proposed
`
`accommodation
`
`would
`
`place
`
`an undue
`
`hardship
`
`on its business.").
`
`Plaintiff
`Exercise
`
`B.
`
`When
`
`Stated
`
`a Cause
`
`of Action
`
`under
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution
`
`(Free
`
`Clause)
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant's
`
`request
`
`for
`
`a religious
`
`accommodation
`
`to
`
`Defendant
`
`denied
`
`the
`
`vaccine
`
`mandate
`
`and
`
`forced
`
`him to be vaccinated
`
`in order
`
`to keep
`
`his
`
`job,
`
`it deprived
`
`Plaintiff
`
`of his
`
`right
`
`to the
`
`free
`
`exercise
`
`of his
`
`religious
`
`beliefs
`
`in violation
`
`of
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause
`
`of
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution.
`
`M A. on behalf
`
`of H R. v. Rockland
`
`Cnty.
`
`Dep't
`
`of Health,
`
`53 F.4th
`
`29,
`
`36 (2d Cir.
`
`2022)
`
`(citing
`
`Kennedy
`
`v. Bremerton
`
`Sch. Dist.,
`
`142 S. Ct.
`
`2407,
`
`2421
`
`of
`
`those
`
`who
`
`hold
`
`religious
`
`beliefs
`
`of all
`
`(2022))
`
`(The
`
`Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause
`
`protects
`
`"the
`
`ability
`
`kinds
`
`to live
`
`out
`
`their
`
`faiths
`
`in daily
`
`life
`
`through
`
`'the
`
`performance
`
`of
`
`(or
`
`abstention
`
`from)
`
`physical
`
`acts.'
`
`").
`
`Article
`
`I, Section
`
`3 of
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution
`
`states
`
`specifically:
`
`enjoyment
`and
`or preference,
`no person
`and
`or her
`opinions
`of his
`secured
`
`free
`The
`discrimination
`
`exercise
`
`humankind;
`account
`conscience
`
`licentiousness,
`state.
`
`N.Y.
`
`Const.
`
`art.
`
`I, § 3
`
`hereby
`or
`
`justify
`
`shall
`practices
`
`profession
`religious
`be allowed
`forever
`shall
`incompetent
`be rendered
`shall
`religious
`on matters
`of
`be so construed
`not
`with
`inconsistent
`
`of
`
`without
`and worship,
`to all
`state
`in this
`to be a witness
`but
`the
`belief;
`as to excuse
`acts
`or safety
`the
`peace
`
`on
`
`of
`
`liberty
`of
`
`of
`
`this
`
`12 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`The
`
`Supreme
`
`Court's
`
`ruling
`
`granting
`
`Defendant's
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss
`
`related
`
`to Appellant's
`
`Fourth
`
`Cause
`
`of Action
`
`(the
`
`Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause)
`
`was
`
`fundamentally
`
`in error
`
`because
`
`it was
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`incorrect
`
`premise
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`does
`
`not
`
`have
`
`private
`
`rights
`
`of action
`
`under
`
`the State
`
`Constitution,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`invocation
`
`of
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution
`
`is a "unnecessary
`
`as plaintiff
`
`had
`
`alternative
`
`avenues
`
`of
`
`redress
`
`available,
`
`including
`
`a private
`
`right
`
`of action
`
`under
`
`the State
`
`and
`
`HRL."
`
`the Defendant
`
`on the
`
`City
`
`The Court
`
`and
`
`rely
`
`case Martinez
`
`v. City
`
`of Schenectady,
`
`97
`
`N.Y.2d
`
`78,
`
`83 (2001)
`
`to support
`
`this
`
`position.
`
`However,
`
`the Court
`
`misconstrues
`
`the
`
`holding
`
`in
`
`Martinez.
`
`In this
`
`decision,
`
`the New York
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`offered
`
`general
`
`guidance
`
`on the
`
`circumstances
`
`under
`
`which
`
`a court
`
`might
`
`recognize
`
`an implied
`
`right
`
`of action
`
`to enforce
`
`provisions
`
`of
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`such
`
`an inquiry
`
`should
`
`consider
`
`two
`
`interests:1)
`
`the
`
`private
`
`interest
`
`that
`
`citizens
`
`harmed
`
`constitutional
`
`by
`
`violations
`
`have
`
`primary
`
`an avenue
`
`of
`
`redress,
`
`and
`
`2)
`
`the
`
`public
`
`interest
`
`that
`
`future
`
`violations
`
`be deterred.
`
`The Defendant
`
`contends
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`allegations,
`
`claiming
`
`a violation
`
`of
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause
`
`of
`
`the New York
`
`State
`
`Constitution,
`
`are merely
`
`thinly
`
`veiled
`
`employment
`
`discrimination
`
`claims,
`
`overlapping
`
`with
`
`those
`
`brought
`
`under
`
`the NYCHR.
`
`However,
`
`this
`
`assertion
`
`is incorrect.
`
`Despite
`
`Plaintiff
`
`having
`
`brought
`
`religious
`
`accommodation
`
`claims
`
`under
`
`the
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`argument
`
`under
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause,
`
`although
`
`arising
`
`out
`
`of a similar
`
`NYCHRL,
`
`set of
`
`facts,
`
`is based
`
`on the whether
`
`the
`
`city's
`
`vaccination
`
`law was
`
`narrowly
`
`tailored
`
`and
`
`specifically
`
`targeted
`
`to discriminate
`
`against
`
`Christians.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`under
`
`the City
`
`Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law bases
`
`its
`
`claims
`
`on the City's
`
`failure
`
`to accommodate
`
`and
`
`failure
`
`to engage
`
`in
`
`cooperative
`
`dialogue.
`
`There
`
`are two
`
`different
`
`legal
`
`analyses
`
`that
`
`arise
`
`out
`
`of each
`
`of
`
`these
`
`statues
`
`and
`
`dismissing
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`under
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution
`
`deprives
`
`him of
`
`the
`
`full
`
`realization
`
`of his
`
`constitutional
`
`rights.
`
`13 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`The Courts
`
`in New York
`
`have
`
`upheld
`
`a Plaintiff's
`
`right
`
`to bring
`
`religious
`
`accommodation
`
`claims
`
`under
`
`the CHRL,
`
`while
`
`also maintaining
`
`religious
`
`discrimination
`
`claims
`
`under
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause
`
`of
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution.
`
`In Diehm
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`for
`
`example,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`refused
`
`to dismiss
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s cause
`
`of action
`
`alleging
`
`a violation
`
`of
`
`the Free
`
`Exercise
`
`Clause
`
`of
`
`the Constitution
`
`because
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`had
`
`properly
`
`distinguished
`
`between
`
`the
`
`grounds
`
`on which
`
`the
`
`two
`
`statutes
`
`were
`
`being
`
`used,
`
`stating:
`
`one
`and
`[2d Dept.
`the
`by
`of action,
`is duplicative
`defendants'
`
`plaintiff
`(See
`
`Kelley
`evidentiary
`proponent
`Defendant's
`
`Further,
`the
`issue
`religious
`
`if
`claim
`a valid
`established
`true,
`593
`36 A.D.3d
`v. Garuda,
`has been
`considered
`material
`has a cause
`of
`the
`pleading
`claim
`that
`argument
`this
`merit.
`is without
`exists
`already
`is not
`is constitutional
`mandate
`violated
`her
`defendants
`both
`that
`and
`exemption
`vaccine
`requests,
`in a cooperative
`dialogue
`engage
`the Constitution..
`
`alternatively
`that would
`
`that warrants
`
`discovery.
`
`further
`as here,
`is whether
`stated
`
`the
`
`one"].)
`
`claims
`
`failing
`by
`rights
`
`to
`under
`
`cause
`
`her
`
`2007]["where,
`criterion
`the
`court,
`not whether
`he has
`an adequate
`and
`remedy
`vaccine
`claim
`that
`the
`of action,
`as plaintiff
`in this
`all COVID-19
`beliefs
`by denying
`the NYCHRL
`violated
`violate
`Free
`Exercise
`
`176-181]l
`
`[RA
`
`Court
`
`to rule
`
`[R.
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`does
`
`not
`
`state
`
`Finally,
`
`it
`
`is duplicitous
`
`for
`
`the Supreme
`
`]
`
`causes
`
`of action
`
`under
`
`the CHRL,
`
`while
`
`also
`
`denying
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`claim
`
`under
`
`the New York
`
`Constitution,
`
`specifically
`
`on the
`
`grounds
`
`that
`
`those
`
`constitutional
`
`claims
`
`are duplicative.
`
`The
`
`Supreme
`
`Court
`
`cannot
`
`seek
`
`to do away
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`constitutional
`
`claims
`
`because
`
`of
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of alternative
`
`remedies
`
`under
`
`the
`
`city
`
`statute
`
`while
`
`also
`
`arguing
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has no
`
`cause
`
`of action
`
`under
`
`the
`
`city
`
`and
`
`statutes
`
`as well.
`
`If Plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`under
`
`the CHRL
`
`have
`
`been
`
`dismissed,
`
`the Court
`
`was
`
`required
`
`to issue
`
`some
`
`ruling
`
`on the merits
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`constitutional
`
`claims,
`
`and whether
`
`Plaintiff
`
`stated
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`for
`
`such
`
`claim,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`I The EEOC has held that
`"Charges
`of discrimination...Therefore,
`one theory
`applicable."
`to the extent
`liability
`
`on other bases, may give rise to more than
`filed
`like charges
`religion,
`involving
`of
`theories
`under all
`and analyzed
`could be investigated
`these charges
`See https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination.
`
`14 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:29 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35
`
`INDEX NO. 522405/2023
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
`
`relying
`
`exclusively
`
`on some
`
`alleged
`
`procedural
`
`deficiency.
`
`The Court
`
`conducted
`
`no such
`
`analysis
`
`in its
`
`ruling.
`
`Therefore,
`
`the
`
`decision
`
`must
`
`be reversed.
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff
`Distress
`
`has
`
`Stated
`
`a Cause
`
`of Action
`
`for
`
`Intentional
`
`Infliction
`
`of Emotional
`
`The
`
`intentional
`
`infliction
`
`of emotional
`
`distress
`
`was
`
`clearly
`
`related
`
`to the
`
`violation
`
`of
`
`the New
`
`York
`
`State
`
`Constitution,
`
`New York
`
`State Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law and New York
`
`City
`
`Human
`
`Rights
`
`Law.
`
`Under
`
`New York
`
`law,
`
`a claim
`
`for
`
`Intentional
`
`Infliction
`
`of Emotional
`
`Distress
`
`requires
`
`a
`
`intent
`
`of a substantial
`
`showing
`
`of:
`
`"(i)
`
`extreme
`
`and
`
`outrageous
`
`conduct;
`
`(ii)
`
`to cause,
`
`or disregard
`
`probability
`
`of
`
`causing,
`
`severe
`
`emotional
`
`distress;
`
`(iii)
`
`a causal
`
`connection
`
`between
`
`the
`
`conduct
`
`and
`
`injury;
`
`and
`
`(iv)
`
`severe
`
`emotional
`
`distress."
`
`Howell
`
`v. New York
`
`Post
`
`Co.,
`
`81 N.Y.2d
`
`115
`
`(1993).
`
`Plaintiff
`
`clearly
`
`pleads
`
`in his Complaint
`
`that
`
`he received
`
`threats
`
`that
`
`he would
`
`be
`
`terminated
`
`if he did
`
`not
`
`submit
`
`to a vaccination
`
`against
`
`his will,
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`he had
`
`that
`
`necessitated
`
`a religious
`
`accommodation.
`
`Mr.
`
`Farah
`
`found
`
`these
`
`religious
`
`needs
`
`intimidations
`
`as
`
`"outrageous"
`
`and
`
`extremely
`
`distressful
`
`because
`
`such
`
`a decision
`
`impac