Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—S.D.N.Y.: ADA accommodation lawsuit over COVID vaccine mandate allowed to continue, (Feb 11, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A non-patient-facing hospital employee plausibly alleged she could work remotely while awaiting medical clearance.

A federal judge in New York rejected a hospital’s bid to dismiss disability discrimination claims brought by a hospital system employee who alleged she was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate despite seeking a temporary medical accommodation. The court concluded that the pleadings plausibly alleged a qualifying disability, an ability to perform essential job functions with accommodation, and the absence of undue hardship, allowing claims under the ADA and parallel state and city laws to move forward (Williams v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corp., No. 24-cv-5467 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2026)).

The court’s ruling focused on whether the employee, an assistant director responsible for cost accounting and budgetary analysis, could continue working remotely for a limited period while awaiting medical clearance to receive the vaccine. Accepting the allegations as true at the pleading stage, the court held that the employee sufficiently alleged that her anemia substantially limited major life activities and that her requested accommodation would not have required the employer to violate New York’s now-repealed health care worker vaccination rule.

Vaccine mandate. The employee worked for NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation in a financial management role that primarily involved reviewing financial data and making budget recommendations. She alleged that she was not patient-facing and that her duties could be performed remotely, as they had been since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

The employee alleged that she has long suffered from anemia requiring regular iron infusions and causing symptoms including fatigue, dizziness, impaired concentration, and breathing difficulties. After contracting COVID-19 in mid-2021, she was advised by a physician to delay vaccination. A hematologist later provided written documentation recommending that she hold off on vaccination temporarily due to the risk that vaccine side effects could exacerbate her condition.

When New York implemented an emergency regulation requiring vaccination of certain health care personnel, the hospital system announced that employees must receive at least one dose by late September 2021. The rule applied to personnel whose duties could expose patients or other staff to COVID-19, but it included a medical exemption where vaccination would be detrimental to an individual’s health.

The employee submitted a request for accommodation supported by her physician’s note. The hospital denied the request and shortly thereafter suspended her without pay. She continued to seek reconsideration, explaining that she was not refusing vaccination but asking for time until she was medically cleared. The hospital maintained that her condition did not qualify for an exemption under prevailing public health guidance and informed her that she would be separated from employment if she did not comply.

Although the employee’s physician cleared her to receive the vaccine the day after the hospital’s stated deadline, the hospital terminated her employment for noncompliance before she could submit proof of vaccination. She subsequently received both required doses.

Disability. In an earlier ruling, the court had dismissed the employee’s claims without prejudice, finding that the initial complaint lacked detail about how her condition substantially limited major life activities. In the second amended complaint, the employee expanded those allegations, identifying specific activities affected by her anemia and describing the frequency and severity of her symptoms.

The court found those allegations adequate at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It emphasized that the ADA’s definition of disability must be construed broadly and that episodic or intermittent impairments can qualify if they substantially limit major life activities when active. The court also rejected the hospital’s argument that the condition was merely temporary because the employee ultimately received the vaccine. The employee, the court noted, described a recurring condition with fluctuating severity, not a short-lived impairment.

The court further observed that even temporary conditions can constitute disabilities under Second Circuit precedent if the statutory requirements are met. The employee plausibly alleged that her anemia substantially affected activities such as concentrating, breathing, working, and caring for herself.

Qualified individual and essential functions. A central dispute concerned whether the employee was a “qualified individual” able to perform the essential functions of her job with or without accommodation. The hospital argued that vaccination was an essential requirement under state law and that the employee therefore could not perform her job while unvaccinated.

The court disagreed. While acknowledging deference to an employer’s judgment about essential job functions, the court stressed that job descriptions are only one factor and that the analysis is fact specific. The employee alleged that her work was non-clinical, non-patient-facing, and had been performed successfully on a fully remote basis for more than a year.

Drawing reasonable inferences in the employee’s favor, the court concluded that it was plausible she did not fall within the category of personnel covered by the vaccination mandate or that her duties could be temporarily structured to avoid in-person contact. Unlike cases cited by the hospital involving nurses or staff whose roles necessarily required physical presence, the pleadings here described work that could be completed off-site without exposing others to COVID-19.

Undue hardship. The hospital also contended that granting the requested accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship because it would have required violation of state law. The court rejected that argument as premature.

Because the employee plausibly alleged that she was not covered by the mandate or could be accommodated by working in a manner that removed her from its scope, the court held that undue hardship was not apparent on the face of the complaint. The court noted that the Second Circuit recognizes the possibility of accommodating unvaccinated employees by adjusting their duties, so they are no longer considered covered personnel, rather than granting a blanket exemption.

The court emphasized that undue hardship is an affirmative defense and that dismissal is appropriate only where the defense is clear from the pleadings. Here, the allegations supported a reasonable inference that a short-term remote-work accommodation would not have posed significant difficulty or expense for the hospital system.

State and local claims. Because the employee adequately stated a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, the court held that her claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law also survived. The court noted that those statutes are at least as protective as federal law and, in some respects, broader.

The case is No. 24-cv-5467 (LJL).

Judge: Liman, L.

Attorneys: Casimir Joseph Wolnowski (Nisar Law Group) for Monique Williams. Ilona Ehrlich, New York City Law Department, for NYC Health and Hospitals Corp.

Companies: NYC Health and Hospitals Corp.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 NewYorkNews