Pursuant to the MLC v. City to which the DEA was a party/petitioner, the NYC Board of Collective Bargaining (“Board”) ordered the City to negotiate with the DEA regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining related to the impact of its improper, unilateral institution of the Vaccine Mandate. As has been detailed previously, the Board-ordered negotiations did not result in a resolution of the dispute between the City and DEA concerning this topic, so on April 16, 2024, the DEA filed a Declaration of Impasse with the Board signifying that any further negotiations between the City and Union would be fruitless and that the Board should send the instant matter to interest arbitration, so that a mutually-selected, third-party Arbitrator could resolve this dispute. Since that time, the City and DEA have been embroiled in extensive disclosure of relevant, discoverable material concerning the various mandatory subjects of bargaining that were implicated by the City’s unilateral imposition of the Vaccine Mandate. The City and DEA have also participated in a number of informal mediation sessions with the Board’s Deputy Chair of Conciliation in attempt to find a mutually-agreeable resolution, in order to avoid any future arbitration. At this time, the City and DEA have requested a final, informal mediation session to explain that the parties remain at impasse and seek the Board’s approval to send this matter to arbitration. We will continue to keep you posted regarding any new developments. In the meantime, if you are or if you know someone who was placed in LWOP status as a result of the Vaccine Mandate, please contact the Union or counsel to ensure that the Union has the most accurate register of DEA members who were adversely affected by the unilateral imposition of the Mandate.
Relatedly, there have been several federal actions initiated by individual, former Detectives again challenging the legality of the imposition of the Vaccine Mandate back in 2021. Specifically, these private, individual actions allege that the City violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by improperly restricting the freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs and NYS Human Rights Law (SHRL) and NYC Human Rights Law (CHRL) by discriminating against them based upon their respective religious beliefs. While the federal courts in this jurisdiction already ruled on the constitutional claims in previous decisions involving the Vaccine Mandate, these courts have not been presented with the SHRL and CHRL claims. It is finally important to note that the spate of new cases is brought by individuals and not as a collective or class action likely because each individual’s circumstances are unique to them. With that being stated, the DEA is here to answer any questions and provide any guidance any member may have concerning this topic.
