A New York court has ruled against Timothy Rivicci, a firefighter with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), in his appeal regarding a request for a religious accommodation from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on October 7, 2026, that the FDNY's denial of Rivicci's request was justified. This ruling impacts not only Rivicci but also other city employees who may seek similar accommodations in the future.
The case originated when the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a vaccine mandate requiring all city employees to provide proof of vaccination by October 29, 2021. Rivicci, who was placed on leave without pay for not complying with the mandate, requested a religious exemption on November 5, 2021. His request was denied by the FDNY on November 29, 2021, leading him to appeal to the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel.
The Panel upheld the FDNY's decision on February 20, 2022. Subsequently, Rivicci was terminated on March 15, 2022. He then filed a proceeding under CPLR article 78, seeking to annul the Panel's decision, recover back pay, and obtain attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court in Richmond County initially ruled in his favor, stating that the FDNY had failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue as required by the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
In its ruling, the Appellate Division reversed the earlier decision. The court, led by Judge Francesca E. Connolly and joined by Judges Deborah A. Dowling, Janice A. Taylor, and Phillip Hom, stated, "The requested accommodation would cause an undue hardship on the FDNY." The court also noted that the FDNY had a valid basis for its decision and that Rivicci had not proven that the city’s process for handling accommodation requests was inadequate.
The court emphasized that the NYCHRL requires employers to engage in a cooperative dialogue with employees requesting accommodations. However, the court found that the FDNY had provided sufficient information on how to apply for accommodations and had communicated effectively with employees during the process. The court concluded that Rivicci had not shown that he was denied a proper dialogue regarding his request.
This ruling has significant implications for city employees, especially those seeking exemptions from vaccination mandates. The court's decision reinforces the idea that employers can deny accommodation requests if they demonstrate that fulfilling those requests would impose an undue hardship on their operations. Additionally, the ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving vaccine mandates and religious accommodations within city agencies.
Moving forward, this decision may deter other city employees from pursuing similar appeals regarding vaccine mandates. It clarifies the responsibilities of employers under the NYCHRL while also outlining the standards for what constitutes an undue hardship. The ruling suggests that employees must provide substantial evidence to support their claims for accommodations.
As for what’s next, Rivicci's options for appeal may be limited. The Appellate Division's ruling is a significant setback for him, but he may still seek further legal recourse. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or additional appeals Rivicci may pursue.