In recent news, it has been heard that the Supreme Court of New York has stated the reinstation of the sanitation workers who were fired on grounds of not getting vaccinated against COVID-19. On Tuesday, sitting on Staten Island, Justice Ralph Porzio declared that the city’s health commissioner transgressed his authority when he asserted the termination of the workers. The Justice announced how the city’s Mayor, namely,  Eric Adams clearly violated the rule and fired the workers. This has led to the infringement of the worker’s due process and equal protection rights.

Briefing of the Ruling

It was in October 2021 that Adams mandated the vaccination of sanitation workers due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Following that, a ruling appears as a fragment of the case filed by 16 workers who were apparently fired in February for their denial to get vaccinated.

The State Supreme Court Justice claimed about the ruling about the mandate vaccination that, it “violates the separation of powers doctrine” in New York’s state constitution, and also it transgressed the worker’s “substantive and procedural due process rights”. He further went on to add that ruling of the Mayor on firing based on vaccination lacked in sheer strength and command that would perpetually discontinue them from the workplace.

Porizo witnessed that certain private employees were liberated from the vaccine mandate made by Adams. And those included athletes, entertainers, and similar ones. In fact, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) recently ceased New York’s state of emergency – giving all the more reason for Justice to make this statement about the fired workers who were missing out on their deserving rights.

Porizo declared how there was no statement backing the rationality that only public employees were mandated to receive the vaccination, whereas the private employees would be freed, or liberating certain professions like athletes, artists, or performers to get vaccinated. Porizo added that “This is clearly an arbitrary and capricious action because we are dealing with identical unvaccinated people being treated differently by the same administrative agency.”

Porizo stated that the vaccine mandate was not only about public health and security but about compliance. He added, if the matter was only about safety and public health then the unvaccinated workers would have been immediately placed on leave. Had it been only about the protection of the people, then the Mayor would have instantly announced a city-wide compulsion for all the residents.

Further documentation had been provided by those workers stating that they had naturally guarded against COVID-19 due to prior infection experienced.

What was the Reaction to this Statement?

As a result, one of the spokespeople of New York City’s law department stated that he severely disagreed with this ruling since the vaccine mandate formed an integral part of ensuring the safe health of New Yorkers. They have also filed an appeal and have announced that the mandate will stay intact in its place since the ruling pertains only to the individual petitioners in this scenario. The court’s decision will be examined that contradicts diverse rulings already sustaining the mandate.