The lawsuit was filed July 20 by George Garvey and 15 other New York City Department of Sanitation employees who were fired by the city for non-compliance with the mandate.
Judge Ralph J. Porzio’s ruling is applicable not only to the 16 workers who sued but also to all public employees in New York City, including the police and fire department.
[embed]https://twitter.com/nycforyourself/status/1584645455459209216?s=20&t=ULMoUi_bsGrIV_shUhba3Q[/embed]
“This decision is a huge victory for New York City employees. Attorney LaVeglia did a great job of articulating how arbitrary these mandates really are.
Mandate Deemed Unconstitutional, in Violation of Principle of Due Process
In his ruling, Judge Porzio focused on the differential treatment afforded to certain classes of private sector employees compared to public sector employees and other private sector employees.Adams’ executive order exempted athletes, artists and performers from the city’s vaccine mandate.
Judge Porzio described this distinction as “arbitrary and capricious,” writing in his decision:
“This is clearly an arbitrary and capricious action because we are dealing with identical unvaccinated people being treated differently by the same administrative agency.
“Granting exemptions for certain classes and selectively lifting [some] vaccination orders, while maintaining others, is simply the definition of disparate treatment. Furthermore, selective enforcement of these orders is also disparate treatment.”
Judge Porzio also noted the state constitution states, “No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of the law.”
While he conceded that “vaccination mandates were enacted in the furtherance of a legitimate governmental purpose,” he also argued, “There must be a reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved and the means used to achieve that end.”
‘States of Emergency Meant to Be Temporary’
Judge Porzio’s decision also addressed the legitimacy of New York City’s “state of emergency,” and its blanket rejection of the petitioners’ religious exemption requests.According to the ruling, 15 of the 16 plaintiffs who applied for religious exemptions to the city’s mandate received “generalized and vague denials.”
This is especially the case, the judge said, in light of the consideration that “states of emergency are meant to be temporary [emphasis original].”
Judge Porzio wrote:
“The question presented is whether the Health Commissioner has the authority to enact a permanent condition of employment during a state of emergency.
“This Court finds that the Commissioner does not have that authority and has acted beyond the scope of his authority under the Public Health Law and in violation of separation of powers.
“The Petitioners herein should not have been terminated for their failure to comply with the Commissioner’s Order during a temporary [emphasis original] state of emergency.”
The ruling further noted that under the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the workers’ union — which went into effect on Jan. 20, 2019, and remains in effect until Dec. 27, 2022 — there was “absolutely no mention of any vaccination as a condition of or prerequisite to employment.”
Judge Porzio wrote:
“How can a ‘condition of employment’ be created during the term of employment? This Court believes that a new ‘condition of employment’ cannot be imposed upon these employees when the ‘condition’ did not exist when they accepted contracted employment.”
Mandate ‘Not About Public Safety’ but ‘About Compliance’
New York City’s vaccine mandate for city employees was not just about safety and public health, “it was about compliance,” Judge Porzio said.He wrote:
“If it was about safety and public health, unvaccinated workers would have been placed on leave the moment the order was issued. If it was about safety and public health, no one would be exempt. It is time for the City of New York to do what is right and what is just.”
“As of the day of this Decision, CDC guidelines regarding quarantine and isolation are the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals,” he wrote.
Judge Porzio further stated:
The judge further recognized the workers who recovered from the virus and thus acquired “natural immunity” over the course of their employment, prior to their termination.
Describing the city’s mandate as “null and void,” LaVeglia stated:
New York City Appealing Similar Recent Rulings
This decision is the latest in a recent string of rulings challenging New York City’s vaccine mandate for public employees that have gone against the city. However, in most of those cases, the city appealed.Judge Porzio also ordered that back pay dating back to Nov. 5, 2021 — the date of Rivicci’s termination — and legal fees be awarded.
Three weeks after Porzio’s decision though, he has not received this financial compensation or been reinstated, leading Rivicci to request the city be held in contempt.
Rivicci’s home is in forbearance and at risk of foreclosure. His wife, who had been a schoolteacher in New York City, also lost her job after not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.
Anderson sued the city Aug. 11, after his request for a religious exemption — and his appeal of that rejection — were denied without explanation.
The lack of explanation formed part of the basis of Judge Arlene Bluth’s decision.
“There is no indication that anybody even read [Anderson’s] arguments,” she wrote.
In anticipation of being fired and losing his legal challenge, Anderson sold his home one week prior to the decision. He continued his employment after initially receiving a restraining order Aug. 15 against the city’s decision to terminate him.
Similarly to Judge Porzio’s Oct. 24 ruling, Frank ruled that a new condition of employment could not be imposed on city workers who were already employed under an existing collective bargaining agreement.
