HUGE VICTORY: NYC’s Largest Police Union Wins Vaccine Mandate Case – Judge Rules Vaccine Mandates “INVALID”

 

On Friday, a judge ruled that police officers who were fired for refusing to get vaccinated against the coronavirus must be reinstated.

In 2021, New York City’s largest police union filed a suit in state court in Staten Island against former Mayor Bill de Blasio to halt his administration’s vaccination mandate for city employees.

Police Benevolent Association (PBA) of the City of New York Police Department argued that the mandate was “far broader and more coercive” than similar measures taken by the federal government and other states and municipalities at a time when Covid infection rates are declining, Bloomberg reported.

“The city has provided no explanation, much less a rational one, for the need to violate autonomy and privacy of NYPD officers in such a severe manner, on the threat of termination,” the union said. 

On Friday, PBA shared an important development in their ongoing legal battle with the federal government over the Covid-19 vaccine mandate.

“I am writing with a critical update on our lawsuit against the Department’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate,” said Patrick Lynch, President of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York.

“The judge in the case has ruled that the vaccine mandate is INVALID as applied to PBA members, and has ordered that all members who were terminated and/or put on leave without pay as a result of non-compliance be reinstated,” Lynch added.

“We are currently analyzing the ruling and are awaiting information from the City regarding how it intends to comply with the judge’s orders. However, this decision confirms what we have said from the start: the vaccine mandate was an improper infringement on our members’ right to make personal medical decisions in consultation with their own health care professionals. We will continue to fight to protect those rights,” Lynch said.

Justice Lyle Frank of the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city’s vaccination requirement for the Police Benevolent Association was invalid “to the extent it has been used to impose a new condition of employment” on the union.

Below is the text of the judge’s order:

ORDERED that the vaccine mandate is invalid to the extent it has been used to impose a new condition of employment to current PBA members; and it is further

ORDERED that the mandate is invalid to the extent that it seeks an enforcement in any other manner than proscribed by law, namely monetary sanctions; and it is further

ORDERED that members of the PBA that were caused to be wrongfully terminated and/or put on leave without pay as a result of non-compliance with the unlawful new condition of employment discussed above are directed to be reinstated to the status they were as of the date of the wrongful action.

ORDERED that the vaccine mandate is invalid to the external it has been used to impose a new condition of employment to current PBA members; and it is further

ORDERED that the mandate is invalid to the extent that it seeks an enforcement in any other manner than proscribed by law, namely monetary sanctions; and it is further

ORDERED that members of the PBA that were caused to be wrongfully terminated and/or put on leave without pay as a result of non-compliance with the unlawful new condition of employment discussed above are directed to be reinstated to the status they were as of the date of the wrongful action.

New York City says they will be “immediately appealing” the ruling, ABC 7 reported. 

Alexander Deletto, a 43-year-old police officer, had his request for a religious exemption granted after the city failed to provide a specific explanation for rejecting his appeal.

The NYPD denied Deletto’s request for religious exemption on Feb. 15. Without providing any additional context, the NYPD simply stated, “does not meet criteria.”

“The hollow and generic phrase ‘does not meet criteria’ cannot be rational because not a single item particular to [Deletto] was discussed and not a single reason for the decision was given,” said Bluth in her ruling. “It is the duty of the agency to explain why it made the decision.