Menze v. Astera Health

Background

Ali K. Menze alleged that Astera Health, formerly known as Tri-County Health Care, terminated her employment as a nurse after she refused to wear an N95 mask. According to the complaint, Astera required employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, but allowed Menze to forgo vaccination as a religious accommodation. The complaint alleged that Astera then required her to wear an N95-style mask rather than the surgical-style mask required for vaccinated employees. Menze returned from maternity leave, did not wear the N95 mask, and alleged that Astera terminated her on January 28, 2022.

Menze previously filed a related lawsuit in this court and voluntarily dismissed it before the court ruled on Astera’s motion to dismiss. She then filed the complaint in this case. Menze represented herself. Astera moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Astera separately moved for sanctions under Rule 11.

Motion to Dismiss

Title VII claims. The court dismissed Menze’s Title VII religious-discrimination claims with prejudice. Title VII requires a plaintiff to file a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and obtain a notice permitting suit before bringing the claim in federal court. Menze’s complaint stated that she chose not to pursue the EEOC process. The court held that this failure was apparent from the complaint and required dismissal. It also held that amendment would be futile because the 300-day deadline for filing an EEOC charge had passed and the complaint alleged no basis for an exception to that deadline.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Section 1983 claims. The court dismissed these claims with prejudice. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to the federal government, and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires action under color of state law. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Astera, which Menze described as a nonprofit public-service corporation and registered health-care provider, was a government actor. Menze’s theory that Astera’s policies reflected a pandemic-era public-private partnership or government “custom” did not adequately allege the required state involvement.

Section 1985 claim. The court dismissed Menze’s conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 with prejudice. The complaint named only Astera and did not specifically identify another participant or facts showing an agreement to deprive Menze of civil rights. The court also rejected a conspiracy theory raised in Menze’s opposition brief involving unnamed government actors and payments related to COVID-19 vaccinations, noting that the theory was not properly pleaded and did not explain an agreement to require Menze to wear an N95 mask.

Health-privacy claims. To the extent Menze intended to assert a claim under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the court dismissed it with prejudice because HIPAA does not create a private right of action. To the extent she intended to assert common-law privacy torts, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

Other state-law and criminal-related allegations. The court determined that Menze did not intend to assert separate causes of action under federal criminal statutes or the Nuremberg Code, and it declined her request for an investigation. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over potential Minnesota claims involving negligence, contract, trust, trespass, conversion, coercion, or unemployment benefits. The court dismissed any such state-law claims without prejudice. It noted that unemployment-benefit appeals must proceed through the procedures provided by Minnesota law rather than in this federal court.

Motion for Sanctions

Astera requested a $10,000 monetary sanction and attorney fees under Rule 11, arguing that Menze had renewed claims she knew were legally deficient. The court denied the motion. Applying an objective-reasonableness standard while giving some leeway to a self-represented litigant, the court found that Menze’s Title VII, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Section 1983, and Section 1985 claims were not objectively unreasonable when filed, even though the court dismissed them. The court also concluded that dismissal with prejudice provided sufficient deterrence and that additional monetary sanctions were not warranted.

Disposition

The court granted Astera Health’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the complaint, dismissed the federal and other claims with prejudice, and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. The court denied Astera Health’s motion for sanctions.