Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York No. 1:19CV01409, Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge. CompassCare, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, and First Bible Baptist Church (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) challenge the constitutionality of New York Labor Law Section 203-e (“the Act”), which prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s or a dependent’s reproductive health decision making. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) granted the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ expressive-association, speech, free exercise, religious autonomy, and vagueness claims. The District Court also permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act’s Notice Provision, which required employers issuing employee handbooks to include certain information regarding employees’ rights and remedies under the Act. Thereafter, this Court decided Slattery v. Hochul, which held that an employer may have an associational-rights claim if the Act “forces [the employer] to employ individuals who act or have acted against the very mission of its organization.” 61 F.4th 278, 288 (2d Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). In light of that decision, we vacate the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ expressive-association claim, the grant of summary-judgment to Plaintiffs as to the Act’s Notice Provision, and the permanent injunction. We remand for the District Court to determine whether any Plaintiff has plausibly alleged an associational-rights claim under Slattery. We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ free speech and free exercise claims. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, C.J. CompassCare, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (“NIFLA”), and First Bible Baptist Church (“First Bible”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) challenge the constitutionality of New York Labor Law Section 203-e (“the Act”), which prohibits “discrimination based on an employee’s or a dependent’s reproductive health decision making.” Plaintiffs contend that the Act unconstitutionally infringes their First Amendment freedoms of expressive association, speech, and religion. They also argue that the Act compels speech in violation of the First Amendment by requiring them to notify employees, in their employee handbooks (should they choose to issue such handbooks), of the employees’ “rights and remedies” under the Act. N.Y. Lab. Law §203-e(6) (the “Notice Provision”). The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) granted the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ expressive-association, speech, free exercise, religious autonomy, and vagueness claims. The District Court also enjoined enforcement of the Act’s Notice Provision, which required employers issuing employee handbooks to include certain information regarding employees’ rights and remedies under the Act. Thereafter, this Court decided Slattery v. Hochul, which held that an employer may have an associational-rights claim if the Act “forces [the employer] to employ individuals who act or have acted against the very mission of its organization.” 61 F.4th 278, 288 (2d Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). The District Court did not have the benefit of the Slattery opinion — which is now binding precedent — when it issued the orders challenged in this matter. In light of Slattery, we vacate the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ expressive-association claim, the grant of summary-judgment to Plaintiffs as to the Act’s Notice Provision, and the permanent injunction. We remand for the District Court to determine whether any Plaintiff has plausibly alleged an expressive-association claim under Slattery. We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ free speech and free exercise claims. I. Background A. The Act The Act prohibits “discrimination based on an employee’s or a dependent’s reproductive health decision making.” N.Y. Lab. Law §203-e. Specifically, the Act prohibits an employer from “accessing an employee’s personal information regarding the employee’s…reproductive health decision making, including but not limited to, the decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service.” Id. §203-e(1) (the “Information Provision”). The Act also prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating “with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” id. §203-e(2)(a) (the “Discrimination Provision”);1 and from requiring an employee to waive these rights, see id. §203-e(2)(b) (the “Waiver Provision”). The Notice Provision requires an employer who chooses to issue an employee handbook to “include in the handbook notice of employee rights and remedies under this section.” Id. §203-e(6). Finally, the Act provides employees with a civil cause of action to redress violations of these protections. See id. §203-e(3). B. The Plaintiffs CompassCare, NIFLA, and First Bible contend that the Act unconstitutionally “meddle[s] in the affairs of religious and pro-life organizations…by forcing them to employ and associate with those persons who do not share or live by the organizations’ beliefs regarding abortion, contraception, and the impropriety of sexual relations outside the context of a marriage between a man and a woman.” Joint App’x at 18 (Compl. 3).2 1. CompassCare CompassCare describes itself as “a pregnancy care center” that “provides clinical pregnancy testing to confirm the existence of pregnancy; ultrasound exams; gestational age determinations; complete pregnancy, abortion, and adoption options consultations; STD testing and treatment; abortion pill reversal services; and medical, insurance, and community support referrals.” Id. at 25 (Compl.
55, 58). CompassCare, according to the Complaint, “does not recommend, provide, or refer for abortions or abortifacient drugs or devices, holding it immoral for anyone to participate in these services.” Id. at 26 (Compl. 69). “In addition to functioning as a standalone pregnancy care center…CompassCare provides training and tools to other” centers, id. at 29 (Compl. 95), and makes public statements concerning “laws and cultural developments dealing with life, pregnancy, abortion, contraception, and other issues,” id. at 30 (Compl. 96). The Complaint describes CompassCare as “a Christ-centered agency” and “a religious organization that provides its services…pursuant to its pro-life and religious viewpoint.” Id. at 27 (Compl.
