DECISION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Crouse Health Hospital, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See dkt. # 8. The parties have briefed the issues, and the Court will decide the matter without oral argument. I. Background Plaintiff Karen Mace alleges that Defendant Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. (“Crouse”), discriminated against her on the basis of her religion when Defendant fired her for refusing to vaccinate against COVID-19. Plaintiff’s religious beliefs prevent her from becoming vaccinated. Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §290 et seq. At the times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a Crouse employee. Complaint (“Complt”), dkt. # 1, at 2. Crouse, Plaintiff’s employer, had more than 500 employees at the relevant time. Id. at 3. Plaintiff was hired by Crouse Hospital on July 21, 2008. Id. at 12. She worked as a Certified Surgical Technician, “a health care professional who provides surgeons and patients with support before, during, and after surgery.” Id. at 13. Plaintiff’s duties in the operating room included preparing the room for surgery by sterilizing and setting up instruments, “disinfecting surgical sites and preparing patients for surgery,” giving surgeons instruments during procedures, “dressing surgical incisions,” and making sure the surgical environment was “sterile.” Id. at 14. Plaintiff was qualified for the job and performed in a satisfactory way. Id. at 15. Plaintiff alleges that on August 12, 2021, Crouse announced that all employees must be vaccinated by September 13, 2021 or face weekly COVID-19 tests. Id. at 16. The tests would be done “on a rotating basis” and performed using a “saliva swab test.” Id. Employees could work will awaiting results. Id. at 17. The policy also mandated that employees with medical or religious exemptions undergo weekly testing as would other unvaccinated employees. Id. at 18. Crouse emailed employees on August 25, 2021 that “‘the New York State Department of Health (DOH) is now mandating that ALL healthcare workers…must be fully vaccinated, with first dose received by September 27.’” Id. at 19. The notice informed employees that medical and religious exemptions to the policy would exist. Id. Crouse urged employees who felt they were entitled to such exemptions to submit “the appropriate form” as quickly as possible. Id. Plaintiff submitted a request for a religious exemption. Id. at 20. That request used “the prescribed forms and follow[ed] the prescribed procedures.” Id. Plaintiff explained that her religious beliefs did not permit her to receive the vaccine. Id. at
21-23. Crouse emailed employees on August 27, 2021 that the New York State Department of Health had “‘issued an update’ to its Covid-19 vaccination rule.” Id. at 24. That update removed the religious exemption from the original vaccine mandate but maintained the medical exemption. Id. The email referred to an emergency regulation issued by the Department of Health on August 26, 2021. Id. That mandate required that employees be fully vaccinated and have had their first dose by September 27, 2021. Id. at 25. A court in the Northern District of New York temporarily stayed the mandate on September 14. 2021. Id. at 26. The court issued a preliminary injunction on October 12, 2021. Id. Plaintiff received notice on September 23, 2021 from Crouse’s director of Human Resources, John Bergemann, that her religious exemption had been “‘conditionally approved.’” Id. at 27. Bergemann’s correspondence explained that the approval came under a temporary order from the District Court. Id. at 28. Bergemann further explained that the order had been appealed by the State of New York. Id. The letter warned that “[d]epending on the outcome of the court proceedings, religious exemptions may not be allowed under the State Public Health Law emergency regulations[.]” Id. If such exemptions are no longer allowed, Bergemann warned, Plaintiff’s “ exemption may be revoked at a future time.” Id. As such, Plaintiff’s “approval is temporary until the final decision is rendered in the court proceedings. Crouse must follow whatever guidelines are established at that time.” Id. Crouse did not alter Plaintiff’s regular job duties in any way when approving her religious exemption. Id. at 29. The approval required that Plaintiff “undergo weekly COVID-19 testing[.]” Id. at 30. Plaintiff complied with that requirement, and tested negative every time. Id. Crouse did not question the sincerity of her religious objections to the vaccine, nor did Crouse claim that the exemption provided Plaintiff would cause Defendant any undue hardship. Id. at
