4 November 2022

New York Court Strikes Down NYC COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates

Seyfarth Shaw LLP


With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
In a wide-ranging and high-profile decision, a New York State Supreme Court Justice held that New York City's public- and private-sector COVID-19 vaccination mandates are "arbitrary and capricious...
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a wide-ranging and high-profile decision, a New York State Supreme Court Justice held that New York City's public- and private-sector COVID-19 vaccination mandates are "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of State law.

Case Background

On October 20, 2021, New York City mandated that all City employees receive vaccination against COVID-19. On December 13, 2021, the City's Health Commissioner extended the mandate to all private-sector employees in the City. On March 24, 2022, New York City Mayor Adams exempted certain professions from the private-sector employee mandate, such as athletes, performers, and other artists.

The petitioners in Garvey v. City of New York challenged the public employee mandate as arbitrary and capricious under New York State law. They also challenged the private-employee mandate, as well as Mayor Adams' Executive Order which provided exemptions for certain categories of professionals.

Court Ruling

On October 24, 2022, the Court held that the public-sector vaccine mandate (1) violated the Separation of Powers doctrine under the New York State Constitution because it exceeded the New York City Board of Health's authority, and (2) was "arbitrary and capricious" because, as the Court noted, "nothing demonstrated . . . as to why there was a vaccination mandate issued for only public employees in October 2021."

Although the private sector vaccine mandate was not the focus of the litigation, the Court also found it to be arbitrary and capricious because it could identify no support in the public record of the need for such a mandate. Specifically, the Court noted the low daily COVID-19 rate when the mandates were enacted (e.g., under 1,500 per day as of October 2021), and characterized that rate as "significantly lower than today's average COVID-19 rates."

Additionally, the Court ordered that the public-employee-Petitioners are entitled to back pay in salary from the date of termination due to vaccine mandate non-compliance. Importantly, the Court did not (and could not) order backpay for private sector employees who were terminated for mandate non-compliance because the Petitioners in this case only represented public-sector employees.

Takeaways: Continued Litigation, Little Impact on Private Sector

This ruling, which is subject to appeal, will likely have minimal impact on the private sector. As we previously reported, NYC has already announced the repeal of its private-employee vaccination mandate, effective November 1, 2022. Thus, at most, private employers can cease requiring vaccination of their employees six days earlier than the planned expiration of the mandate. It remains to be seen whether private-sector employees whose employment was terminated as a result of the private-employee mandate will also seek or be entitled to relief based on this decision.

Seyfarth will continue to monitor developments in this space and provide updates when available.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More