OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Nicholas Franchilli (“Plaintiff”), initiated this action on June 13, 2023, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A §2000e et seq., and its Amendments (“Title VII”), the New York State Executive Law 15 §296 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), and New York City Human Rights Law — Administrative Code of the City of New York §§8-10 et seq., against Defendants Albert Einstein College of Medicine (“the College”), Montefiore Health Systems, Inc., (“Montefiore Health”), and Montefiore Medical Center (“Montefiore Medical”) (together, with Montefiore Health “Montefiore”) (together, with the College and Montefiore Health, the “Defendants”). Presently before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. BACKGROUND The following facts are derived from the Complaint and are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff at this stage. Plaintiff is a 59-year-old Roman Catholic Male who started working for the College on May 14, 2018. (Compl. 23.) Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff worked remotely from March 23, 2020 to June 22, 2020. (Id. 28.) Plaintiff performed the same tasks working remotely as he did in the office. (Id. 30.) Plaintiff was not advised of any problems with his performance during this time. (Id. 29.) On or about June 22, 2020, the College re-opened its offices on a hybrid, rotating basis. (Id. 31.) Employees would conduct half of their work responsibilities at home and half in the office. (Id.) While working the hybrid schedule, Plaintiff was not informed of any performance issues. (Id. 32.) The College implemented safety measures for employees working in the office (temperature checks, wearing of masks.) (Id. 33.) On July 14, 2021, the College sent notices via mail to its employees advising them of the College’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. (Id. 34.) The College advised employees that if they “met the necessary requirements for an exemption,” the College would “make every effort to accommodate them.” (Id. 35.) Employees not vaccinated were able to complete PCR COVID-19 twice weekly and present the results to the College’s Occupational Health Services to be cleared to be on campus. (Id. 36.) Additionally, unvaccinated employees would complete a daily electronic health assessment, wear a mask and socially distance while on campus. (Id.) Plaintiff was told to submit an exemption request by July 19, 2021. (Id. 37.) Plaintiff’s religious beliefs as a practicing Roman Catholic led Plaintiff to believe that abortion and thus the use of aborted fetal tissue was a sin against God; therefore, Plaintiff believed he could not take any of the COVID-19 vaccines because their creation involved reliance on aborted fetal cell lines. (Id.
40-42, 48.) Plaintiff also states that he believes people should have the “free will to choose” because “we are made in the image of God” and thus should have had the choice to decide to take the COVID-19 vaccine, rather than because of a vaccine mandate. (Id. 49.) On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff submitted his religious exemption request to Robert L. Cancellieri, Director of Employees Relations for the College. (Id. 50.) Then, on July 30, 2021, Plaintiff was told by Mr. Cancellieri that his exemption request was denied. (Id. 52.) The exemption denial later specifically stated accommodations the College had in place for employees whose exemption requests were denied: “Einstein has developed a plan to help address the impact of the vaccination requirement and allow for continued employment for those individuals whose request for exemption is denied. This plan includes, COVID-19 PCR testing, medical clearance, daily health assessment and continued enhanced COVID-19 preventive measures such as masking and distancing.” (Id. Exhibit C at 5.) Plaintiff and the College then “spoke…about accommodations that could be made.” (Id. 53.) Plaintiff was provided with an alternative accommodation to vaccination: testing twice a week for COVID. (Id. 57.) Plaintiff asserts that “having to endure this testing requirement” would “not [be] a reasonable accommodation” and that “[a]llowing Plaintiff to remain at home to work would have alleviated the health and safety concerns” at issue. (Id. 61.) Plaintiff was placed on unpaid leave August 2, 2021, and then terminated August 18, 2021, at which point he received two weeks’ severance pay and payment for accrued vacation time. (Id. 63.) The termination letter from Yvonne Ramirez, Vice President of Human Resources stated that Plaintiff was being terminated because he was “unable to comply with Einsten’s vaccination requirements or alternative compliance terms” and the College would “not modify the requirements we have implemented to protect the students and employees of the College.” (Id., Exhibit D at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that because of his termination, he endured severe hardship, was forced to sell his New York home and relocate to Florida for employment. (Id.
