Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—S.D.N.Y.: Nurse who sought vaccine exemption based on childhood reaction cannot advance claims, (Aug 25, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

A speculative reaction to the COVID vaccine is not a disability within the meaning of the ADA, even when accompanied by a doctor’s note.

Granting summary judgment against a nurse’s ADA, FMLA, and state-law claims challenging her involuntary resignation for failure to comply with a COVID vaccine mandate, a federal district court in New York determined that the nurse could not show that she was a qualified individual under the ADA because a potential reaction to a vaccine could not be said to limit a major life activity. As to her claim for FMLA interference, the court found she was not entitled to leave, had never requested leave, and would have been terminated regardless of such a request. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claims ( Caravello v. Garnet Health Medical Center , No. 24-CV-01104 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2026)).

The employee in this case began working as a nurse manager of hemodialysis for a hospital and was later promoted to director of hemodialysis. Her duties required her to, among other things, move patients and hire and train staff.

Exemption request. After the State of New York issued an emergency order requiring healthcare entities to ensure that their employees were fully vaccinated against COVID-19, the employee submitted a medical exemption request. She asserted she would not be taking the vaccine based on a childhood reaction to a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP) vaccine that left her unable to walk for two weeks. She had disclosed this reaction to the DTaP vaccine to her employer previously. She also referred to her brother who had a similar reaction to the DTaP vaccine and, upon receiving his first dose of the COVID vaccine, developed swelling and hard lumps over his body.

Shortly after submitting her exemption request, the employee provided a doctor’s note stating that she had self-reported allergies to penicillin, latex, and the DTaP vaccine and should not receive the COVID vaccine.

Ultimately, the employer concluded that the employee’s medical exemption request and doctor’s note was not evidence of a contraindication to the COVID vaccine. It denied her exemption request and stated that it could not accommodate her because she could not continue to work on a unit with high-risk patients while unvaccinated. If she remained unvaccinated, the employer informed her that her last day of work would be on September 27, 2021, and her employment would be terminated on October 4, 2021.

Mental health crisis. On September 24, the employee informed the hospital’s interim vice president that she had experienced a mental health crisis the previous day. She met with the chairman of the department of psychiatry by telephone but did not request any form of FMLA leave. On October 4, she was deemed to have voluntarily resigned.

Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit, asserting claims for failure to accommodate and discrimination under the ADA, FMLA interference, and state-law claims for disability discrimination.

Not disabled. First, the court addressed the employee’s ADA claims. The employer argued that she could not make a prima facie showing that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The court agreed.

The employee had failed to show that she had “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more [of her] major life activities,” within the meaning of the ADA, explained the court. Courts in the Second Circuit have routinely rejected claims that a speculative reaction to the COVID vaccine is a disability within the meaning of the ADA, even when accompanied by a doctor’s note. So too was the result here.

In this instance, the doctor’s note submitted by the employee was insufficiently specific and too speculative to allow the court to determine that the employee had a disability as defined by the ADA. Further, the employee did not cite to any evidence that there was “an element of the COVID vaccination” that was also present in the DTaP vaccine that would cause her to have an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine. In addition, her previous disclosure to the employer that she had an allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine was of no consequence, as she was required to submit evidence that, at the time she requested the accommodation, she had a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

As to the employee’s argument that because her brother allegedly reacted to the COVID vaccine, she too would have a similar response and was thus disabled, the court noted that such arguments had been rejected in this district. Because the employee failed to meet this prima facie requirement, her reasonable accommodation and disability discrimination claim failed.

Proposed accommodations. Even if the employee were able to show she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, her proposed accommodations of masking, social distancing, and eliminating patient contact were unreasonable, explained the court.

It was undisputed that the employee could not perform her job duties without patient contact. In addition, masking and social distancing would not only require the employer to violate the state’s mandate, such accommodations would be unreasonable due to the hardship associated with the increased risk to staff and patients and the risk of civil liability to anyone infected by an unvaccinated employee, said the court. Thus, her ADA claim also failed because she could not perform the essential functions of her position, even with a reasonable accommodation, and the employer had shown a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying the requested accommodations.

FMLA interference. Turning to the employee’s claim for FMLA interference, the employer argued that her prima facie case failed because she could not show that she was entitled to take leave. The court agreed.

In response, the employee argued that she had a serious health condition because she experienced suicidal ideation which led to her attempting to take her own life several weeks after suffering from these symptoms, and she had contact with two healthcare providers at her place of employment within a 24-hour period between September 23 and 24. The employer countered that when the employee experienced suicidal ideations “she was not incapacitated,” and she “received no treatment until after termination, and did not receive prescribed medication until November 3, 2021.”

To meet the definition of a “serious health condition” under the FMLA, a plaintiff must show that they required either inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. The employee did not claim that her condition required inpatient care prior to her termination, and one-time meetings with two healthcare providers did not constitute continuing treatment, explained the court.

Further, the court noted that it is well-settled that an employer is not liable for “interfering” with an employee’s leave when the employee would have been terminated anyway. In this case, it was undisputed that the employee was told of the termination decision before she informed the employer of her mental distress. Thus, she was not denied any right to leave under the FMLA.

Notice of intent. In addition, continued the court, the employee failed to satisfy the fourth element for an FMLA interference claim—notice of her intent to take leave. While the court agreed with the employee that she was not required to use the specific phrase “FMLA leave” to evince intent, a request for leave must still be made to put an employer on notice. The employer was not required to provide notice of the employee’s FMLA rights after she disclosed her mental health crisis because at no point did she ever request leave, explained the court. Accordingly, her FMLA interference claim was dismissed because she was not entitled to take leave and never provided notice of her intent to take leave.

State-law claims. Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the employee’s remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

The case is No. 24-CV-01104 (PMH).

Judge: Halpern, P.

Attorneys: Michael Howard Sussman (Sussman & Associates) for Christina Caravello. Caterina Catalano (Jackson Lewis) for Garnet Health Medical Center and Scott Batulis.

Companies: Garnet Health Medical Center

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave Covid19 NewYorkNews