Decided and Entered:July 23, 2026

CV-24-2004

Calendar Date: May 26, 2026

Before: Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Ceresia, Mcshan, Mackey And Ryba, JJ.

[*1]

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 2024, which, upon reopening and reconsideration, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

In October 2021, the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene mandated that all city employees, with exceptions not relevant here, obtain a COVID-19 vaccine by October 29, 2021. Claimant, an emergency medical technician for the New York City Fire Department, sought a religious exemption from the mandate. The employer denied claimant's request. After claimant failed to provide proof of vaccination, the employer terminated his employment, prompting claimant to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. In its initial determination, the Department of Labor found, as relevant here, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained that determination, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed in a March 2023 decision.^FN1

The Board thereafter reopened its decision and remanded the matter for a further hearing to address claimant's contention that his sincerely held religious beliefs prevented him from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Following that hearing, the Board, in an October 2024 decision, rescinded its March 2023 decision, affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision and sustained the Department's initial determination, concluding that claimant had not demonstrated that his noncompliance with the COVID-19 vaccination mandate was rooted in a sincerely held religious belief and, therefore, his voluntary separation from employment was without good cause. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment, and whether their conduct is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, are factual issues for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Gardner [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d 1464, 1465-1466 [3d Dept 2025] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Palmieri [Commissioner of Labor], 243 AD3d 970, 971-972 [3d Dept 2025]).

In his written request for a religious exemption, claimant identified himself as a "practicing Non-Denominational Protestant Christian for over 25 years" and stated that he "firmly believe[d] that to get vaccinated would violate both [his] religion and [his] conscience" because, according to the Bible, vaccines would "pollute" him. However, claimant also stated that adhering to the vaccine mandate would put his "health and life unnecessarily at risk" because of the alleged adverse side effects attributed to the vaccines, "the sub-normal testing and approval process," the lack of long-term studies, the manufacturers' "unwillingness to disclose the full ingredients list of the [*2]proprietary vaccine(s), and the indemnity of pharmaceutical companies." At the hearing following the Board's remand, claimant testified that he had been a member of the Reformed Church in America since he was a child, including at the time he submitted his exemption request. According to claimant, the Reformed Church did not take a "hard stance" as to whether a member should or should not get the vaccine, explaining that there were those within the church that believe "it interferes with the sovereignty of God and there's probably also those who see vaccines as a gift from God," and that claimant believed it was "a matter of conscience" whether to get vaccinated. Nevertheless, claimant acknowledged that he received the yellow fever vaccine prior to performing missionary work in Kenya in 2015, and that he probably would get a COVID-19 vaccine if it was required to perform missionary work in the future, explaining that we know more about the vaccines than when the mandate was first imposed. When asked to explain the difference between participation in a mission and performing his job as an emergency medical technician, claimant again explained that we now know more about the COVID-19 vaccines. Claimant also testified to, at times, taking over-the-counter and prescription drugs, including muscle relaxers and pain medication. Although claimant had expressed concerns regarding the use of fetal stem cells in the COVID-19 vaccines, he testified that he had never researched whether any of the prior vaccinations or medications he had taken had been developed using fetal stem cells.

Deferring to the Board's credibility assessments and the inferences to be drawn from claimant's varied testimony and submissions, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination. Given claimant's inconsistent testimony and admission to taking vaccines in the past and willingness to take them in the future, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that his refusal to comply with the vaccination mandate was for personal and secular reasons, including safety concerns, rather than for sincerely held religious beliefs and, therefore, that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause (see e.g. Matter of Palmieri [Commissioner of Labor], 243 AD3d at 972; Matter of Cooper [Commissioner of Labor], 239 AD3d 1209, 1211 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Tandian [Commissioner of Labor], 239 AD3d 1105, 1106-1107 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 910 [2026]; Matter of Salloum [Commissioner of Labor], 238 AD3d 1394, 1396-1397 [3d Dept 2025]). Claimant's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking merit.

Ceresia, McShan, Mackey and Ryba, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.