On February 26, 2025, the Second Circuit issued a decision determining that employers are not required to honor reasonable accommodations that violate state law. The case, Russo v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist., involves a school psychologist who worked remotely until 2021 when the Patchogue-Medford School District required its staff to return to classroom teaching and implemented a policy, pursuant to state law, requiring employees to either receive a COVID-19 vaccination or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing. The plaintiff sought an exemption from getting the vaccination as well as having to submit to weekly testing due to her religious beliefs, proposing she be allowed to continue working remotely instead.
The school district denied plaintiff’s requests, claiming it could not exempt her from the policy because doing so would violate New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 2.62 (2021)—or New York State’s COVID-19 testing requirements. The school district also denied plaintiff’s request to continue working remotely, arguing her physical presence in the school was necessary to the essential functions of her job and having to hire a replacement to cover plaintiff’s necessary in-person duties would result in an undue hardship.
The lower court in Russo v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist., No. 22-cv-01569 (HG) (SIL), 2024 WL 149131, at *4–6 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2024), determined that in-person teaching was an essential function of plaintiff’s job and employing a replacement would incur additional expenses. As such, the lower court considered plaintiff’s request to work remotely an undue hardship. Additionally, the lower court reasoned that plaintiff’s request to be exempt from New York’s COVID-19 testing requirement would have caused the school district to violate state law, and thus, also imposed an undue hardship on the school district. After plaintiff appealed, the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision finding in favor of the school district. Previously in New York State, only an accommodation that would require an employer to violate federal law was considered an undue hardship; however, the Russo case now applies that reasoning to encompass accommodation requests that violate state law as well.
Individuals who believe that they have been discriminated against based on a protected characteristic under federal and/or State law should seek legal counsel to analyze their potential claims.