DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Kevin Whitford (“Plaintiff”) is a former employee of defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Defendant” or “Amtrak”) who alleges that Defendant failed to accommodate his sincerely held religious objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). (See id.). Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are “either precluded (Federal Claims) or preempted (State Claims) under the Railway Labor Act (‘RLA’)[.]” (Dkt. 10-4 at 9). In the alternative, Defendant seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Id.). For the reasons below, the Court agrees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and accordingly dismisses the complaint without prejudice. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a locomotive engineer in March 2006. (Dkt. 1 at
9, 28). He held that position until August 2022. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff “operated the trains for the Defendant at their business branch located at 27th and Lockport Road, in Niagara Falls, New York 14305.” (Id. at 10). Plaintiff is a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (“BLET”) union. (Id. at 34). Defendant and the BLET union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). (Dkt. 10-3).1 Rule 3 of the CBA governs seniority and Rule 6 governs “Bulletins and Assignments.” (Id.). Together, Rules 3 and 6 of the CBA set forth the process by which engineers bid on and receive assignments, including situations in which an engineer may exercise his seniority to displace a more junior engineer. (See id.). Rule 6(l) of the CBA specifically addresses the process by which “regular runs” can be “rearranged,” and discusses the fact that any such rearrangement must “group[] such runs consistent with seniority.” (Id. at 10). “Plaintiff is a practicing Roman Catholic and has adhered to the principles of the Catholic Church for at least 40 years.” (Id. at 46). Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs “preclude[] him from accepting any one of the three currently available COVID-19 vaccines[.]” (Id. at 49). Around July 2021, Defendant started discussing a possible COVID-19 vaccine mandate with its staff. (Id. at 43). “Plaintiff immediately objected to the mandate as taking any COVID-19 vaccine violated his sincerely held religious beliefs.” (Id.). Defendant adopted a policy requiring all active Amtrak employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 effective November 22, 2021. (Id. at 45). Defendant has a policy allowing for religious accommodations for those with sincerely held religious beliefs. (Id. at 44). Plaintiff applied for a religious accommodation on August 30, 2021. (Id. at 45). “Plaintiff’s accommodation request was granted, and he was allowed to continue working while still providing weekly COVID saliva tests, wearing protective eye gear and masks.” (Id. at 61). During the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant’s trains originally ceased traveling to Canada. (See id. at 69). “[H]owever, in June 2022, that changed.” (Id.). The Canadian government had previously issued an emergency order requiring all foreign nationals entering Canada to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and to provide evidence of the same. (Id. at
