Vesterman v. New York City Department of Education

── Vesterman v. New York City Department of Education ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General 25-2731-cv Vesterman v. New York City Department of Education 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 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 3rd day of June, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, SUSAN L. CARNEY, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ TIFFANY VESTERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-2731-cv NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DAVID C. BANKS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHANCELLOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: NATALIA KAPITONOVA (Stewart Lee Karlin, on the brief) Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: HANNAH J. SAROKIN (Richard Dearing, Elina Druker, on the brief), for Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Hall, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the September 30, 2025 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Tiffany Vesterman, a former employee of the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), challenges the constitutionality of the DOE’s denial of her religious accommodation request from New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate (the “Vaccine Mandate”). Vesterman alleges that she applied for a religious accommodation to the Vaccine Mandate in September 2021, specifically seeking to be exempted from the mandate based on her Catholic faith. The DOE denied Vesterman’s request and, after placing her on unpaid leave, 2 terminated her employment. Subsequently, Vesterman learned that the DOE placed her fingerprints in a “problem code” database, which she asserts stigmatized her for committing misconduct and prevented her from working in education thereafter. Vesterman now appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing her claims against Defendants-Appellees DOE and DOE Chancellor David C. Banks (collectively “Defendants”). Vesterman, a teacher with the DOE since 2001, alleges that Defendants violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying her a religious exemption from the Vaccine Mandate. She further argues that Defendants violated her procedural due process rights by placing her information in the problem code database without first providing her with a name-clearing hearing. Finally, she contends that the district court erred