Summary
This Second Circuit opinion affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a school district against an employee's claims for religious discrimination, retaliation, and genetic information violations. The court held that granting the employee's requested exemption from a state-mandated COVID-19 vaccination or testing policy would have caused an undue hardship by forcing the employer to violate state regulations, and that remote work was not a reasonable accommodation due to substantial costs. Additionally, the court found that family vaccine history does not constitute genetic information under GINA, and properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Russo's Title VII religious discrimination claim.
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing Russo's GINA claim.
- Whether the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Holdings
- Summary judgment is affirmed because the requested religious accommodation would have required the district to violate New York law and would have imposed an undue hardship in the form of substantial increased costs.
- The district court correctly dismissed the GINA claim because vaccine and family vaccine history do not constitute genetic information under 42 U.S.C. §2000ff.
- The district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction because all claims over which it had original jurisdiction were resolved.
Key quotations
“Summary judgment is appropriate when, after construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and drawing all reasonable inferences in the opposing party’s favor, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (at *4–6)
“The district court concluded that personal and family vaccine history do not constitute genetic information under the statute, and thus Russo had failed to show that the questions by the District about her family’s medical history violated GINA.” (at *6)
Factual background
Dayna Russo, a school psychologist, sought a religious exemption from a district COVID‑19 vaccination/testing mandate. The district denied the exemption, citing New York regulations, and placed her on unpaid leave. She sued alleging violations of Title VII, GINA, and New York Education Law.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment to the school district on federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Russo appealed the decision to the Second Circuit.