Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs were former Kaiser employees who alleged that they were terminated after refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. California’s August 5, 2021 health order required healthcare workers to be vaccinated by September 30, 2021, subject to qualifying medical and religious exemptions. Kaiser later adopted a policy requiring employees to be fully vaccinated or have an approved exemption, stating that employees who did not satisfy the policy would be terminated.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted nine causes of action: six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; breach of contract; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and an asserted implied private right of action under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, the federal emergency-use provision for medical products. Plaintiffs also moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint adding a claim concerning a fundamental right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.

State Defendants’ Motion

The State Defendants were Gavin Newsom and Tomás Aragón. They challenged the claims on standing, immunity, and pleading grounds.

The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. Plaintiffs alleged that their terminations were connected to the State’s health order because Kaiser adopted its vaccination policy soon after the State issued its order and referred to the state mandate. The court found that connection plausible at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court rejected plaintiffs’ separate theory that they had been forced to receive a vaccine because plaintiffs alleged that they did not receive one.

The court then addressed qualified immunity, which protects government officials from civil damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the State Defendants had a ministerial duty—a duty requiring a precise, non-discretionary action—to accept their refusal to receive emergency-use-authorized vaccines. The court also found that plaintiffs had not identified authority showing that the State Defendants violated a clearly established right by issuing a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for healthcare workers during a pandemic. The court therefore held that Director Aragón and Governor Newsom were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and dismissed those claims. The court stated that this qualified-immunity analysis was dispositive and did not reach whether the alleged conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right.

As to the state-law claims against the State Defendants, plaintiffs did not oppose the arguments concerning the California Government Claims Act, immunity, and the sufficiency of the allegations. The court treated those arguments as conceded and dismissed the state-law claims against the State Defendants with prejudice.

Kaiser Defendants’ Motion

The Kaiser Defendants argued that the Section 1983 claims failed because Kaiser was not acting under color of state law, meaning that it was not acting as a state actor. The court focused on Kaiser’s alleged conduct as an employer: adopting a vaccination policy and terminating plaintiffs under that policy.

The court considered the public-function and joint-action tests that plaintiffs raised. It held that enforcing the vaccination policy was not a function traditionally and exclusively performed by the government. It also held that plaintiffs had not alleged the close cooperation required to show joint action between Kaiser and the State. Compliance with generally applicable law, including the state health order, was not enough to make Kaiser a state actor. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the Kaiser Defendants. Because the state-action element was dispositive, the court did not address the Kaiser Defendants’ other Section 1983 arguments.

The court separately dismissed the claim under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3. It explained that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorizes enforcement proceedings in the name of the United States and that private parties may not bring enforcement suits under that statute. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument for an implied private right of action because they offered no supporting authority and the argument conflicted with Supreme Court and statutory authority.

After dismissing all federal claims against the Kaiser Defendants, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the remaining contract and tort claims. It dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice toward plaintiffs’ refiling them in state court.

Motion to Amend and Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. It concluded that the proposed amendments would be futile because they did not identify a clearly established right supporting the claims against the State Defendants and did not show that the Kaiser Defendants were state actors. The court denied leave to amend as to both groups of defendants.

In its conclusion, the court dismissed the Section 1983 claims with prejudice; dismissed the state-law claims against the State Defendants with prejudice; and dismissed the state-law claims against the Kaiser Defendants without prejudice toward refiling them in state court. The court also ordered defendants to submit a proposed judgment and directed the clerk to close the file.