Second, employers may reduce or eliminate vaccine exemptions as much as possible. This fact was used by the court to support its conclusion that the Petitioners’ case was not barred by the statute of limitations. As the saying goes, “no good deed goes unpunished” and it appears that applies to the NYC Department of Sanitation giving the Petitioners the option to get vaccinated and get their old jobs back. That being said, if the decision were to survive an appeal (NYC has reportedly filed an appeal already), it may change how employers impose vaccine mandates on their workers.įirst, employers may choose not to give fired employees a second chance to get vaccinated and return to work. How the Court’s Reasoning Could Affect Workers Outside NYCīefore we get too deep into the significance of this court’s decision, we need to remember this is a trial-level court and any appeal could reverse its conclusions. (Photo by Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images) Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images The mandate will apply to workers at about 184,000 businesses. The vaccine expansion is set to take place on December 27, just days before Mayor Bill de Blasio leaves office. requiring all private-sector workers to show proof of two vaccine doses. NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - 4: Dozens of antivax proponents rallied against a NYC mandate. Because if it was, any unvaccinated workers would have immediately been placed on leave until a decision concerning their requests for a coronavirus vaccine exemption. Therefore, the court felt that the vaccination mandate was never about public safety. This was because athletes, performers and artists could be exempted from the vaccination requirement, but the Petitioner could not.įifth, the court noted that the Petitioners could continue working while their exemption requests were being processed. But this was the first time the Petitioners had ever had a vaccination requirement placed on them.įourth, firing the Petitioners deprived them of equal protection under the law as provided for by the NY Constitution. The court distinguished those cases because those healthcare workers had always been required to be vaccinated as a condition of employment. The Respondents relied on prior case law upholding vaccination requirements among healthcare workers. Third, the vaccination mandate was effectively a legal mandate that affected the Petitioners’ conditions of employment and that the Health Commissioner of NYC didn’t have the authority to make changes to those conditions for employment. The court stated that these were powers that the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shouldn’t have. This occurred because the vaccination mandate unilaterally and indefinitely changed the terms of the Petitioners’ employment. Second, the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene violated the separation of powers doctrine. The court looked at EO 62 and argued that it treated similarly situated people differently without providing evidence to support the unequal treatment. The court said this letter reset the statute of limitation “clock.” After concluding the Petitioners’ suit was filed on time, the court held that the vaccination mandate was unlawful for several reasons.įirst, it was arbitrary and capricious. However, the court said the lawsuit was still timely because after firing the Petitioners, the NYC Department of Sanitation sent a letter giving the Petitioners the option to return to work after they got vaccinated. The Respondents first argued that the Petitioners’ lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. The order commanded that all terminated Petitioners be reinstated on Octoand collect back pay from their date of termination. Porzio issued an order essentially dismissing the Respondent’s arguments and accepting most of the Petitioners’ arguments. Both sides filed motions asking the court to decide in their favor. They also contended that it was unconstitutional under the New York Constitution. The Petitioners argued that the applicable employment coronavirus vaccine requirement was arbitrary and capricious. They sued NYC, the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the NYC Department of Sanitation, the NYC Commissioner of the NY Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Mayor of NYC (collectively, Respondents). They filed a lawsuit pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. George Garvey, along with several other individuals (collectively, Petitioners) are former NYC Department of Sanitation workers who got fired for their failure to get vaccinated or obtain an approved exemption.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |