While courts in this Circuit have historically treated Title VII and NYSHRL discrimination claims similarly, in 2019, the NYSHRL was amended to be “closer to the standard of the NYCHRL.” Chinchilla v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, No. 23-cv-08986 (DEH), 2024 WL 3400526, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2024) (quoting Livingston v. City of New York, 563 F.Supp.3d 201, 232 n.14 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)). Therefore, because Plaintiff's NYSHRL claims accrued after 2019, they “rise and fall with [her] NYCHRL claims,” id. (citation omitted), and the Court will thus analyze Plaintiff's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims separately from her Title VII claims.
Claims for failure to accommodate a religious belief under the NYCHRL are assessed under a similar standard as Title VII failure-to-accommodate claims, first assessing the existence of a prima facie case and then inquiring as to whether accommodating the employee's religious belief would constitute an undue burden for the employer. See Chinchilla v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, No. 23-cv-8986, 2024 WL 3400526, at *7-10 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2024). The NYCHRL standard differs from Title VII in that it is more liberal.
But numerous courts have recognized that a plaintiff's beliefs about a vaccine's connection to abortion can constitute a bona fide religious belief. See Jackson v. New York State Off. of Mental Health - Pilgrim Psychiatric Ctr., No. 23-CV-04164, 2024 WL 1908533, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2024); Algarin, 678 F.Supp.3d at 508; Chinchilla v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, No. 23-cv-8986, 2024 WL 3400526, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2024). Here, Plaintiff not only alleges that she believes there exists such a connection, but specifically roots her objection in what she interprets to be a Biblical mandate.
But even if Plaintiff had specified the tenet of her belief that would be violated upon receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, Plaintiff does not allege that she conveyed that specific belief to her employer.See White, 629 Fed.Appx. at 134 (affirming dismissal at summary judgment of Title VII claim where plaintiff failed to notify employer that his religious beliefs conflicted with his ability to work); cf. Chinchilla v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, No. 23-CV-8986, 2024 WL 3400526, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2024) (holding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged she informed her employer of her religious belief, in case under New York human rights laws, where plaintiff's complaint “explain[ed] in detail her religious beliefs and how they conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccination”).
In contrast to the “exceedingly narrow” set of facts in Kane, 19 F.4th at 167, plaintiff fails to allege that his religious beliefs “were . . . evaluated for their objective validity by comparison to those of other members of h[is] faith,” Chinchilla v. New York City Police Dep't, No. 23 Civ. 8986 (DEH), 2024 WL 3400526, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2024); see also Collins v. City Univ. of New York, No. 21 Civ. 9544 (NRB), 2023 WL 1818547, at *9 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2023) (drawing a distinction with Kane because “the sincerity of [the plaintiff's] religious beliefs was not evaluated against someone else's publicly expressed religious views”). Instead, the allegations demonstrate that the DOI assessed plaintiff's RA Request based on his own religious views, without any reference to the beliefs of others, in an attempt “to determine the sincerity of [his] religious beliefs” -- a perfectly permissible inquiry for an employer to make.
Section 396 of the New York City Charter provides that “[a]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.” N.Y. City Charter ch. 17 § 396. “Section 396 of the Charter has been construed to mean that New York City departments, as distinct from the City itself, lack the capacity to be sued.” Ximines v. George Wingate High Sch., 516 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see Jenkins v. City of New York, 475 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he NYPD is a non-suable agency of the City.”); Chinchilla v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, No. 23-cv-08986 (DEH), 2024 WL 3400526, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2024) (“The NYPD, as a city agency, is not a suable entity.”