Federal Judge Tosses Firefighter’s Vaccine Lawsuit Against NYC: No Fundamental Right to Refuse Second Dose
Brooklyn, NY – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a former New York City firefighter who claimed the City violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to take a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine—despite his severe allergic reaction to the first.
In a decision filed this week, U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan granted summary judgment to the City of New York, holding that plaintiff Obrian Pastrana failed to establish any violation of his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Pastrana fails to identify a fundamental right or illustrate why the City’s vaccine policy fails rational basis review,” Judge Cogan wrote.
Pastrana, who worked for the FDNY, argued that the City’s vaccine mandate forced him to choose between his health and his career. He suffered hives, swelling, and chills after his first dose and was later diagnosed with myocarditis after the second. He ultimately retired on a standard disability pension after being deemed medically unfit for firefighting.
But the Court found no constitutional violation, ruling that vaccine mandates—even when applied in challenging medical circumstances—are subject only to minimal judicial scrutiny under the rational basis test, a hurdle the City’s policy easily cleared.
No Fundamental Right to Reject a Job Requirement
Judge Cogan was clear: the Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to refuse a vaccine required for public employment.
“Even assuming the vaccine mandate had harsh personal consequences for plaintiff, it still passes constitutional muster,” the Court noted, emphasizing that protecting public health and safety—especially in emergency services—was a legitimate government objective.
The Court added that Pastrana was never denied the opportunity to seek a medical exemption. While his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful due to complications with allergy testing, the City’s policy allowed for such accommodations.
What’s Next?
Although the federal claim is now closed, several of Pastrana’s state and city law claims—centered on failure to accommodate his medical condition—remain. Judge Cogan has ordered both parties to show cause as to whether the Court should retain jurisdiction over those remaining claims or dismiss them without prejudice for state court adjudication.
