NJAC Reports Employees Suing NYC Over Denied Jewish Group Recognition

by

Seven New York City health department employees are suing the city after alleging they were barred from forming an official Jewish employee resource group and later faced a retaliatory investigation.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, names the City of New York, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), and the agency’s equal employment opportunity director as defendants, NJAC reported.

The plaintiffs allege the agency refused to recognize “HINENU: The Jewish ERG,” despite already having six other identity-based employee groups. They claim the agency’s refusal was based on the assertion that Jewish identity is strictly religious, a distinction the plaintiffs argue ignores the cultural and ancestral components of Jewish peoplehood.

“The Jewish people should enjoy the same support and the same rights that are afforded by the law and the City to other ethnic and cultural groups,” said Alan H. Scheiner, Senior Litigation Counsel at the National Jewish Advocacy Center, who represents the plaintiffs.

The legal action follows a series of internal conflicts within the DOHMH. According to the complaint, the agency denied HINENU’s application for an Employee Resource Group (ERG) in a single sentence, citing the group’s alleged religious nature. This decision came just sixteen days after the agency’s EEO official closed a previous investigation into HINENU leaders, stating the agency was “unable to make findings.”

HINENU Members Allege Workplace Hostility Following News Report

The complaint details a timeline of events that the plaintiffs describe as a hostile work environment. Following a news report of a mass shooting at a Chanukah gathering in Sydney, Australia, HINENU members sent an email to approximately 85 employees to mourn the victims and organized an online support space. In response, the agency’s EEO director reportedly ordered the group to “desist” from using its email account, NJAC reported.

The plaintiffs further allege that the EEO director opened a four-month investigation into eight HINENU leaders for “racial and religious discrimination.” During this process, investigators allegedly questioned the leaders regarding their beliefs on Zionism and Israel. The complaint asserts these investigations were based on statements made during the mourning session for the Bondi Beach attack.

Beyond the specific targeting of HINENU, the lawsuit alleges a broader pattern of hostility within the agency. The filing points to several instances, including:

  • A division-wide message from a deputy commissioner regarding the “settler colonial establishment of Israel.”
  • An agency-sponsored lecture organized by a “Global Oppression Working Group” that included allegations against the State of Israel.
  • An agency training session where a participant described the October 7 massacre as “armed resistance” without recorded objection from the agency.

“The City told its Jewish employees that every identity counts except theirs, then investigated them for grieving,” Mark Goldfeder, CEO of NJAC, told the agency.

The plaintiffs argue that the DOHMH’s actions reflect a larger policy of hostility from the city’s executive branch. The complaint specifically mentions Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s public stances regarding the State of Israel as evidence of a municipal environment that is unwelcoming to Jewish identity and its connection to the Jewish state.

Plaintiffs Seek Damages and Recognition for HINENU

The lawsuit, Cohen v. City of New York, No. 1:26-cv-09883, seeks several forms of relief. The plaintiffs are asking the court to mandate that the DOHMH recognize HINENU on the same terms as other established ERGs. They also seek to have the EEO investigation expunged from their professional records and are requesting both compensatory and punitive damages.

The legal arguments are grounded in multiple frameworks, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

A central point of contention is the agency’s definition of identity; while the DOHMH rejected the Jewish group on religious grounds, the complaint notes that another recognized group is defined by the shared ancestry of the “indigenous peoples of Southwest Asia and North Africa,” a charter that spans multiple religious identities.

The case highlights a growing tension in municipal governance regarding how identity-based groups are defined and protected within the public sector. While the city maintains the right to manage its internal resource programs, the plaintiffs argue that applying religious exclusions to one specific ethnic and cultural group constitutes unlawful discrimination.

The DOHMH has not yet issued a formal response to the specific allegations contained in the filing.

Keep reading

Read next