[Aunche]

>Did you read the ruling?

That's a lot of ask of an internet commenter.

In all seriousness, I did see that part while skimming through it, but I don't find it very convincing in regards to public employees. The order came from the Mayor, not the health commissioner. Requiring city employees be vaccinated is an administrative decision. It's within the best interests of the city that city employees not get sick, that the city's health insurance premiums don't go up, etc.

[db48x]

> It's within the best interests of the city that…

Yes, but that’s not the sole requirement. In addition to serving a legitimate government purpose, a government order must also avoid being arbitrary or capricious. Every order has to meet both requirements, and this one only meets one of them. From the ruling:

“This Court finds that based on the analysis above, the Commissioner’s Order of October 20, 2021, violated the Petitioners’ equal protection rights as the mandate is arbitrary and capricious. The City employees were treated entirely differently from private sector employees, and both City employees and private sector employees were treated entirely differently from athletes, artists, and performers. All unvaccinated people, living or working in the City of New York are similarly situated. Granting exemptions for certain classes and selectively lifting of vaccination orders, while maintaining others, is simply the definition of disparate treatment. Furthermore, selected enforcement of these orders is also disparate treatment.”

[Aunche]

>a government order must also avoid being arbitrary or capricious

There were two separate orders. The first was for public employees, and the second was for private employees. I agree that the second was capricious, but the first was consistent. The city is allowed to fire city employees. Maybe something about it is unconstitutional, but the ruling completely handwaves this, as well as the justification for backpay.

[db48x]

> The city is allowed to fire city employees.

The city union disagrees rather strongly with that :) In particular, the city’s contract with these workers does not require them to be vaccinated. If your boss sprung a new rule on you and then fired you for not following it, you would be pretty upset too. Especially if it required you to take actions that you thought were potentially risky to your own personal health and safety. I’ll let you read the ruling yourself though, since it was more nuanced than that and I am tired of transcribing from a scan of a printout of a digital document.

Having multiple separate orders that result in an unconstitutional outcome is not really different from having a single unconstitutional order. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up; it’s not very interesting.

Also, awarding back pay is super common in wrongful–termination suits. Any time the harm resulting from a tort is monetary, it is quite ordinary to redress that harm through monetary means. In fact, in most cases it’s one of the easiest forms of harm to redress. The court cannot undo the harm to someone’s reputation nearly as easily, for example.

[Aunche]

>The city union disagrees rather strongly with that

Do they? From what I understand these employees aren't being represented by the union. Also, the ruling acknowledges that they did bargain with the union and are therefore not finding a breach of contract.

>Having multiple separate orders that result in an unconstitutional outcome is not really different from having a single unconstitutional order. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up; it’s not very interesting.

My point is that it's not unconstitutional for the city to fire a city employee.

[prottog]

Employment (and unemployment) by the city, which is a governmental entity, is held to a higher standard of scrutiny than private employment. It is unconstitutional for the city to fire a city employee based on arbitrary and capricious reasons, just as it would be unconstitutional for the city to impose any other sort of administrative restriction on its citizens on an arbitrary and capricious basis. Would you find it legal for the city to only issue marriage licenses to those who provide proof of vaccination?