The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing employer vaccine mandates have resulted in a wave of religious freedom lawsuits not seen since the Vietnam War era.  Just like during that earlier period, many lower court judges have been skeptical, at times openly hostile, towards claims by plaintiffs that their religious rights were being violated.  But also like that earlier period, over time the appellate courts have reaffirmed the fundamental principles of religious freedom on which this country is based.

In one of the most important decisions of this current era of religious liberty litigation, on July 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) issued its decision in Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, No. 23-7544-cv, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision to throw out the plaintiffs’ vaccine exemption claims on the grounds that they lacked sincerely held religious beliefs conflicting with the NY Fed’s vaccine mandate.

Steven M. Warshawsky was retained by the plaintiffs to argue their appeal (but was not counsel in the original district court case).  Oral argument was held on December 4, 2024.

Although the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff Gardner-Alfred’s claims, due to some unfortunate facts that were unique to her, the court revived the claims of Plaintiff Diaz.  In doing so, the court emphasized that “[w]hat matters to the law is whether she sincerely believed that the use of Covid-19 vaccines was contrary to her religious convictions” – and that this is a determination to be made by the jury at trial, not by the district judge at summary judgment.

Thus, the Second Circuit’s ruling makes clear that in vaccine exemptions cases no less than other types of cases, district judges may not usurp the role of the jury and bar plaintiffs from getting their day in court.  (Practitioners in this area should read the Second Circuit’s decision very carefully as it contains important points pertaining to summary judgment motions involving issues of religious belief.)

Plaintiff Diaz’s case now returns to the district court, where she will be represented by Mr. Warshawsky.  We look forward to fighting in court for our client and helping her obtain justice and compensation for the personal and financial hardships she has suffered.