You are here: / / FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19...
, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE JUSTIFIED THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING TO THAT EFFECT DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS NOT IRRATIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, affirmed the arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine:

… [T]he court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was against public policy because petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden to establish that the award in this employer-employee dispute violated public policy” … . We further agree with respondents that the court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was irrational” … . ” ‘An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ … . Where, however, “an arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached,’ the arbitration award must be upheld” … . Here, inasmuch as it is undisputed that [the employer] directed petitioner to receive the vaccine by a date certain, that it apprised her that her continued employment was dependent upon her compliance, and that petitioner refused to be vaccinated by the required date, the court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was irrational … . Further, the court was not permitted to vacate the award merely because it believed vacatur would better serve the interest of justice … . Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 02445, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination did not violate public policy and was not irrational.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AND HAD NOT TIED OFF HIS LANYARD (FOURTH DEPT).
PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED; DEFENDANT CONTRACTED WITH THE TOWN TO HANDLE BIDS FOR THE PROJECT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR THE TOWN AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 AND NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED BOARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DROWNING CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DIED AFTER GOING OVER A SUBMERGED DAM; ALTHOUGH THE BOARD WAS NOT LIABLE PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE DAM UNDER AN ESPINAL EXCEPTION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BOARD OWNED THE DAM (A DANGEROUS CONDITION); THE BOARD IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
Trustee Was Not Negligent In Its Management of Three Trusts; Surrogate’s Court’s Findings Reversed
Where Proof Is Directed Exclusively to a Theory Not Charged in the Indictment, the Proof Is Insufficient to Support the Conviction—Such a Variance Need Not Be Preserved by Objection to Be Raised on Appeal/Conduct of Spectators (Mouthing Words When Victim Testified) Did Not Require that the Spectators Be Removed and Did Not Mandate the Declaration of a Mistrial

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN CPLR 3216 PRECLUDED DISMSSAL... THE “ALLEGEDLY INCAPACITATED PERSON” (AIP) WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE...