Wood v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT

Background

Chadd Wood, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, ViacomCBS/Paramount, over the employer’s failure to grant him an exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination policy. He asserted various discrimination claims. The defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Wood also filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission procedures concerning the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or GINA.

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice except for claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA; the New York State Human Rights Law, or NYSHRL; and the New York City Human Rights Law, or NYCHRL. She recommended that those claims be dismissed without prejudice and that Wood be allowed to amend them. She also recommended denying Wood’s motion concerning the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed Wood’s objections to the recommendation and the defendant’s response. It agreed that the GINA claims should be dismissed regardless of whether Wood’s assertion about COVID-19 vaccines changing genetic information was true. The court explained that GINA prohibits discrimination based on a person’s genetic information, while Wood’s allegations did not assert that the employer acted because of his genetic information. The court therefore overruled his objections concerning the use of information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and agreed with the recommendation regarding GINA.

The court also rejected Wood’s argument that the magistrate judge had ignored his alleged vaccine contraindication and religious-exemption claims. Regarding the alleged contraindication, the court agreed that Wood had not pleaded facts supporting a reasonable inference that his alleged vaccine allergy substantially limited his ability to work. The court noted that he did not identify the vaccine ingredient involved or state that he had experienced severe allergic reactions after prior vaccinations. The court agreed that his ADA disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims were subject to dismissal as recommended.

Regarding religious discrimination, the court agreed with the recommendation that any claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court stated that the ADA claims had been considered exhausted and properly before the court. It also found that Wood’s objections concerning Title VII merely repeated earlier arguments and did not identify a specific error.

The court agreed that Wood had not pleaded enough facts to support religious- or disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL. However, based on Wood’s briefing, the court found that it was conceivable that he could plead viable versions of those claims. It therefore adopted the recommendation allowing him to replead them.

Disposition

The court overruled Wood’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice except as to the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims, which were dismissed without prejudice to the timely filing of a second amended complaint. The court granted Wood leave to replead those claims and required him to file a second amended complaint within 60 days of the order, by November 22, 2024.

The court denied Wood’s motion challenging the constitutionality of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Wood permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The case remained referred to Judge Parker for general pretrial management.