Wright v. Brooklyn Hospital Center

── Wright v. Brooklyn Hospital Center ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General 24-2632 Wright v. Brooklyn Hospital Center UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of April , two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, BETH ROBINSON, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ GARFIELD WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 24-2632 THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee, GARY G. TERRINONI, VASANTHA K. KONDAMUDI, SAM J. AMIFAR, ROBERT AULICINO, STACY A. FRIEDMAN, JUDY MCLAUGHLIN, GUY MENNONNA, LENNY H. SINGLETARY III, SHARON WICKES, ARMAND P. ASARIAN, JOHN J. FERRARA, KIM C. FLODIN, JAMES GASPERINO, LEONID GORELIK, SHARON M. LAWSON-DAVIS, DEAN LINDSEY, KAREN MILANO, DONALD P. MINARCIK, DEBORAH NIEDERHOFFER, EGONDU ONUOHA, AILEEN TANAFRANCA, JOHN WALSH, PAUL Y. WONG, TOM FOLEY, FRANKY GOLDSBERRY, Defendants. _________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Garfield Wright, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Barbara E. Hoey, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of dismissal entered on September 18, 2024, is AFFIRMED. Garfield Wright, representing himself, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the Brooklyn Hospital Center’s (“the Hospital”) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Wright sued the Hospital, alleging it had violated Title VII by terminating his employment as a housekeeper after he refused on the basis of his religious beliefs to take the 2 COVID-19 vaccine. The Hospital moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that granting Wright’s request for an exemption would have imposed an undue hardship by requiring it to violate state law. The district court granted the Hospital’s motion and dismissed Wright’s complaint with prejudice. See Wright v. Brooklyn Hospital Center, No. 23-CV-856, 2024 WL 4216399, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2024). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) without deference, “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Mazzei v. The Money Store, 62 F.4th 88, 92 (2d Cir. 2023). 1 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009