NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) – New York City teachers won’t get relief from a vaccine mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit has affirmed a September decision by a lower court judge who denied the teachers’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The brief order called District Judge Brian Cogan’s decision “thoughtful.”
“Ultimately, even if plaintiffs disagree with it, the Order at issue represents a rational policy decision surrounding how best to protect children during a global pandemic,” Cogan wrote on Sept. 23.
“Although plaintiffs argue that there are other proven means of preventing the spread of COVID-19 in schools, among them frequent testing and mask wearing, it is not shocking for the City to conclude that vaccination is the best way to do so, particularly at a time when viral transmission rates are high.
“To support this proposition, defendants note that the CDC has recommended vaccination of schoolteachers and staff ‘as soon as possible’ because vaccination is ‘the most critical strategy to help schools safely resume full operations. . . [and] is the leading public health prevention strategy to end the COVID-19 pandemic.’ Further, defendants point to the recent exponential increase in pediatric cases since schools have resumed elsewhere in the country where vaccination rates among those eligible are low.”
The case is to be kicked back to Judge Cogan, who will determine the proper next step.
The plaintiffs are public school teachers who say they are at risk of losing their livelihoods, their health insurance, and their ability to pursue their profession under a New York City Executive Order announced on August 23 that stated they must have at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination by September 27.
Unlike the vaccine mandate for federal workers announced on September 9, the August 23 Order includes no provision for DOE workers to opt out of the mandate through testing. Any teachers who do not comply stand to lose their health benefits, their jobs, or their seniority, the suit says.
The plaintiffs allege that this goes against the Due Process Clause which limits what the government may do in both its legislative and its executive capacities.