Federal Magistrate Recommends Denying Motion to Dismiss in FDNY Vaccine Mandate Religious Accommodation Case
A federal magistrate judge in New York has recommended allowing a lawsuit filed by an FDNY firefighter fired after being denied a religious exemption from the City’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement to move forward.
Salvatore Maita, an FDNY firefighter since 2004, was fired in 2022 after his request for a religious accommodation from the City’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate was denied. In 2023 his request for reinstatement was similarly denied when he refused to sign a waiver of his right to back pay.
According to the complaint, Maita’s employment record was described as “without blemish,” with no suspensions or findings of insubordination. He is a Roman Catholic who adheres to traditional teachings predating the Second Vatican Council. He alleged that his faith requires opposition to abortion and prohibits participation in the use of products developed using aborted fetal cell lines. He also alleged that he attends Traditional Latin Mass several times per week and engages in regular religious observances.
In October 2021, New York City issued a vaccination mandate requiring city employees, including FDNY personnel, to receive a COVID-19 vaccine by October 29, 2021, while allowing for reasonable accommodations based on religious or medical grounds. The City also issued policies outlining the accommodation process and permitted employees seeking accommodations to continue working while submitting weekly negative COVID-19 test results during the review process.
Maita was placed on leave without pay on November 1, 2021, due to noncompliance with the vaccination mandate. Four days later, he submitted a formal request for a religious accommodation. In his request, he identified his religion as Roman Catholic and sought permission to submit weekly PCR testing in lieu of vaccination. He explained that his objection to vaccination was based on his opposition to the use of abortion-related materials in vaccine development.
On December 1, 2021, FDNY denied the request, stating that the asserted basis for accommodation was insufficient in light of potential hardship to the department. Maita alleged the denial was a standardized response given to all employees whose religious accommodation requests were rejected. He further alleged that FDNY and the City rejected his objections based on fetal cell line concerns, treated his pre-Second Vatican Catholic objections as invalid because current church leadership did not formally oppose vaccination, and failed to examine the sincerity of individual beliefs.
Maita’s employment was terminated on February 11, 2022, for failing to comply with the vaccination mandate. FDNY granted approximately 105 medical and religious accommodations to other employees, including firefighters, permitting them to submit weekly PCR tests rather than receive the vaccine. The complaint further alleged that unvaccinated personnel from volunteer departments and outside municipalities were permitted to respond into the city under mutual aid agreements.
After the City later amended the mandate in February 2023 to remove workplace exclusion for unvaccinated workers, Maita sought reinstatement. The FDNY advised him that reinstatement would require him to waive claims for back pay. He declined and alleged he received no further response after resubmitting reinstatement paperwork.
Maita filed suit asserting:
- Violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
- Violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause
- Failure to accommodate under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)
- Failure to accommodate under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)
- Failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue under the NYCHRL
The City moved to dismiss his suit for failure to state a claim.
Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon concluded that the complaint sufficiently alleged violations of both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. The court noted that the complaint alleged the City rejected Maita’s request because his objections were based on personal religious practices and because City decision-makers evaluated Catholic doctrine and leadership positions when assessing accommodation requests.
The court found that these allegations plausibly suggested that the request may have been rejected because the beliefs were considered idiosyncratic or inconsistent with institutional religious positions, which could raise constitutional concerns.
Magistrate Scanlon also concluded that Maita adequately pleaded religious discrimination claims under both state and city human rights laws. The court found that the complaint alleged:
- A bona fide religious belief conflicting with an employment requirement
- Notice to the employer of that belief
- Discipline resulting from failure to comply with the conflicting requirement
The court held that whether accommodating Maita would have created an undue hardship could not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage because the complaint alleged that weekly testing was identified in City policy as a potential accommodation and was granted to other employees.
The magistrate judge also found the complaint adequately alleged a failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue. While prior cases upheld the City’s overall accommodation process, Maita alleged that he received a standardized denial, that the City failed to investigate the sincerity of his beliefs, and that it applied categorical assumptions regarding vaccine objections without individualized review.
The magistrate judge recommended that the City’s motion to dismiss be denied in its entirety, allowing all claims to proceed. The assigned district judge will review the recommendation after the parties have an opportunity to file objections.
Here is a copy of the decision:
