In John v. Aviles-Ramos, (ED NY, Aug. 27, 2026), a New York federal district court rejected claims by a former special education teacher that his former colleagues and supervisors discriminated against him because he was a Jehovah’s Witness and placed a substantial burden on his practice of his religion. Rejecting plaintiff’s free exercise claim, the court said in part:
This claim is based on three alleged instances of misconduct. First, that he was forced to sing “happy birthday” during school birthday celebrations; second, that he was required to bring his students to a school Christmas party; and third, that he was asked to take down a “God is love” sign…. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Defendants imposed any policy targeting his religion, and none of the alleged incidents of misconduct rises to the level of a violation of his right to free exercise of his religion….
As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not shown that the alleged incidents of misconduct resulted from non-neutral policies…. The Complaint does not allege any facts suggesting that the school’s policies surrounding the birthday parties, the Christmas celebration, or the affixing of religious signs were created specifically to target Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In any event, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the incidents he describes substantially burdened his freedom to exercise his religious beliefs. The determinative question in assessing whether an action imposes a substantial burden “is whether participation in the [event] . . . is considered central or important to [the plaintiff’s] practice of [his religion].” Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582, 593–94 (2d Cir. 2003). “A burden on religious exercise is not substantial when it ‘comfortably could be said that a belief or practice is so peripheral to the plaintiff’s religion that any burden can be aptly characterized as constitutionally de minimis.’” …
… Though Plaintiff does not celebrate birthdays due to his religious beliefs, … there is no basis for his claims that being instructed to sing “happy birthday” at a student’s birthday celebration … would meaningfully burden his ability to practice as a Jehovah’s Witness.
Plaintiff next alleges that Granger informed him “that he would have to bring the kids to the room” for a Christmas party, and that he “was told there were no exceptions.” … [A] requirement to merely escort students to a school Christmas party — but without requiring him to actually participate in the celebrations at that party — is not a substantial burden protected by the Free Exercise Clause….
Finally, Plaintiff claims that he was told to take down a sign he had “put up” reading “God is love.” … However, it is well established that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired.” …
The court also held that plaintiff failed to allege adequate facts to support his disparate treatment and failure to accommodate claims.