Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—S.D.N.Y.: Employee who refused COVID-19 vaccine due to chronic autoimmune conditions advances non-accommodation claim, (Jan 8, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She plausibly alleged that her risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine qualified as a disability, and the CDC’s exclusion of her medical conditions from its list of contraindications did not definitively establish her exemption request was frivolous.

A mostly remote employee, who was denied her request for an exemption to her employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate despite a doctor’s note that provided a reasoned basis for why her chronic autoimmune conditions rendered her vulnerable to a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine, and who was ultimately terminated after she refused to be vaccinated, advanced her claim that she was denied a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). However, she failed to plausibly allege that her disability played a motivating factor in her termination. Granting in part and denying in part the employer’s motion to dismiss, a federal district court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over her parallel claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) (Carnett v. TIAA Insurance Company, No. 24-CV-9991 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2026)).

Remote worker. The employee began working for the two defendants (the employer) in 2000. Since 2001, she mostly worked remotely from her home office in Greenwich, New York, though she traveled to New York City (NYC) for work purposes once every six weeks, with additional visits as needed.

Autoimmune condition. In 2010, she was diagnosed with multiple chronic autoimmune conditions, including Raynaud’s Syndrome, early-stage Scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic medical complications from a B-19 infection. These conditions allegedly restricted her from using her hands, walking, and standing, and caused pain and discomfort in her joints.

Vaccine mandate. In late 2021, the employer instituted a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for all staff members but allowed requests for medical exemptions. The employee consulted with her doctor, who advised her to refrain from receiving the vaccine because it could exacerbate her autoimmune conditions.

Executive’s remark. At a meeting in November 2021 at which the employee was not present, a marketing executive remarked as to employees not vaccinated against COVID-19: “Don’t get it. Be a stupid f*cking idiot. Go ahead and die.”

Denied exemption, fired. On January 24, 2022, the employee applied for an exemption and included a note from her doctor listing her autoimmune conditions. After her request was denied, she submitted a second request which included another doctor’s note and redacted medical records. Nevertheless, based on a medical opinion from a third-party physician, the employer terminated her in September 2022 for failing to receive two COVID-19 vaccines.

NYCHRL claim tossed. The NYCHRL makes clear that “its protections are afforded only to those who inhabit or are ‘persons in’ the City of New York.” As such, courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought by a non-resident plaintiff if the alleged discriminatory conduct did not have an “impact” on the employee within NYC. Finding that the employee’s connection to NYC was too tangential, the court dismissed her NYCHRL claims.

Crucially, she did not claim that any discriminatory conduct took place while she was in NYC. For instance, she was not present at the meeting at which the marketing executive made targeted comments. Moreover, the fact that the employer made the decision to terminate her in NYC did not itself constitute a sufficient tie to the city, and her official designation as a member of the NYC office did not show that she felt the impact of her termination there. At most, she alleged that she worked from the NYC office every six weeks and stayed overnight during those visits, which was insufficient to sweep her within the ambit of the NYCHRL.

Risk of adverse reaction as disability. However, the court rejected the employer’s argument her remaining “failure to accommodate” and “adverse employment action” claims under the ADA must be dismissed since her disability was too speculative. Notably, she alleged that she was diagnosed with multiple “chronic and incurable” autoimmune conditions, described her symptoms, and explained how they limited her ability to perform manual tasks and physical activities. Accordingly, at issue was whether she sufficiently alleged that her risk of an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine qualified as a disability under the ADA, and the court concluded that she did.

Though the employer pointed to several decisions in which courts dismissed ADA claims based on hypothetical negative reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, those cases were factually distinguishable since none of the plaintiffs had existing medical conditions that could plausibly increase their risk of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine. By contrast, the doctor’s note the employee gave the employer outlined her medical conditions and provided a reasoned basis for why those conditions rendered her vulnerable to a serious adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Medical records and explanation. The doctor also attached redacted medical records and stated that her “family history of connective tissue disease and autoimmune disease... puts her at an exceptionally high risk of complications from this vaccine.” The doctor also opined that her “Parvo B-19 status increases her risk of influenza viral origin myocarditis,” which is significant since “myocarditis status post COVID-19 vaccination has been widely reported in peer review literature.” The doctor also stated that her underlying conditions “predisposes her to developing severe anemia,” which “outweighs the benefit of vaccination with any of t[h]e COVID-19 formulations.”

The court acknowledged that the employee’s case would have been strengthened had her doctor supplied more detailed allegations about the nature, length, and severity of the complications she was at risk of experiencing due to the COVID-19 vaccine. However, at the pleadings stage, she adequately alleged that her projected reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine “was more than sheer speculation and potentially serious enough to qualify as a disability under the ADA.”

Dispute over reasonableness. The employer also argued that the employee’s failure to accommodate claim failed because autoimmune conditions are not one of the contraindications to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine as described by the CDC, and therefore she was not entitled to an exemption. The court disagreed, concluding that the CDC’s exclusion of her medical conditions from its list of contraindications did not definitively establish that her request for accommodation was frivolous, particularly given her doctor’s opinion to the contrary. Rather, whether her medical conditions heightened her risk of a serious adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine was a factual issue that did not warrant dismissal at this early stage.

Firing not related to disability. Finally, the court dismissed her disparate treatment claim since she failed to plausibly allege the requisite causal connection between her disability and her termination. Indeed, she admitted that she was terminated “for not being vaccinated” in violation of the companywide vaccine mandate, and she did not claim that the vaccine mandate was unequally enforced against disabled employees or otherwise allege facts that it was her disability, rather than her non-compliance, that led to her termination.

The court squarely rejected her contention that bias could be inferred by the targeted statement made by the marketing executive at the November 2021 meeting, noting that she did not claim the individual was involved in—or that the comment was made in relation to—the decision to terminate her. Additionally, the remark was allegedly made 10 months before her termination, weakening any inference that disability bias played a motivating role in her termination.

The case is No. 24-CV-9991 (JPO).

Judge: Oetken, J.

Attorneys: Kelly Anne Magnuson (Harding Mazzotti) for Danielle Cochran Carnett. Jamie Haar (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart) for TIAA Insurance Co. and Nuveen, LLC.

Companies: TIAA Insurance Co.; Nuveen, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 Procedure StateLawClaims NewYorkNews