A federal judge has dismissed the primary constitutional claim brought by a disabled former FDNY firefighter who alleged that New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was brought by former firefighter Obrian Pastrana, who contended that the City’s refusal to grant him a medical exemption after a severe reaction to the first vaccine dose violated his substantive due process rights.

We first covered the case when it was filed in October 2024. Here is the link to the earlier coverage. Pastrana alleged that after receiving the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, he developed hives, swelling, and chills and was hospitalized shortly after returning to duty. Despite his reaction, FDNY’s Bureau of Health Services advised him that he would need to complete the vaccination series unless an allergist confirmed a contraindication. Because Pastrana was taking prednisone to treat his reaction, the allergist told him an allergy test could not be performed. He ultimately received the second dose and was again hospitalized, later being diagnosed with myocarditis. FDNY’s medical board deemed him unfit for firefighting and retired him on ordinary disability.

Pastrana sued the FDNY, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the City of New York, claiming that the City’s vaccine mandate and narrow accommodation policy violated his constitutional rights. He also brought state and city human rights claims alleging failure to accommodate his disability.

U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on Pastrana’s substantive due process claim. The court held that:

• There is no fundamental right to refuse a vaccine mandate imposed for public health purposes as a condition of employment. The court cited Jacobson v.Massachusetts (1905) and the Second Circuit’s decisions upholding COVID-19 mandates, including We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul.
• The burdened interest was not a right to bodily integrity, but rather the right to a specific job. Because Pastrana was not barred from pursuing firefighting elsewhere, the court found no violation of a fundamental right to occupational choice.
• The City’s requirement that Pastrana obtain an allergy test before granting an exemption, and its decision to deny his accommodation request, were rationally related to the legitimate government interest in protecting public health during a pandemic.

In rejecting Pastrana’s as-applied challenge, Judge Cogan noted that although the outcome was difficult, the vaccine mandate allowed Pastrana to choose between vaccination and continued employment. Quoting from the decision:

• Pastrana asserts that the narrow accommodation policy for the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional as applied to him, violating his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Courts analyze substantive due process claims using a two-step process. First, the Court must identify the relevant fundamental right. Second, assuming there is one, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that the state action was so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.”
• All rights are not deserving of special treatment; only those rights that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
• There is no general fundamental right to reject a vaccine mandate imposed for the purpose of public health and safety.
• This case differs from Jacobson, where an individual could be at risk of harm from a government mandate that applied to everyone. In this case, Pastrana always had a choice between receiving the vaccine and keeping his job
• Assuming, in Pastrana’s favor, that the City denied his accommodation request, he was free to decide between taking the vaccine or seeking different employment.
• The burdened right in this case is not the right to be free from unwanted medical treatment, but rather the right to specific employment.
• Although it was a difficult decision, ultimately, Pastrana had to choose between his job with the FDNY and getting the vaccine.
• At all times, Pastrana was free not to receive the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, potentially sacrificing his career.
• Therefore, the burdened right is not the right of bodily integrity or preservation, but rather the right to specific employment.

Having dismissed the federal constitutional claim, the court ordered the parties to show cause why it should retain jurisdiction over Pastrana’s remaining claims under the New York City and State Human Rights Laws. Based on the outcome of that determination, Pastrana’s case will likely be dismissed from federal court, and brought in state court.

Here is a copy of the decision: