Azor-El v. New York City Department of Corrections

Background

Former detainees who had been held at Rikers Island sued the City of New York, former New York City Department of Correction officials, and wardens. They asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights, alleging that COVID-19 conditions of confinement violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and New York State and New York City laws. They sought damages and, alternatively, a court order requiring relief.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Department of Correction failed to adequately address COVID-19 risks through masking, social distancing, cleaning and sanitation, testing, ventilation, staffing, and vaccination policies. They sought certification of three classes: the “All Rikers Class,” covering everyone detained in Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, through May 11, 2023; the “Positive for COVID Class,” covering people who contracted COVID-19 while in custody; and the proposed “Medically Vulnerable Class.”

Class-certification standards and Rule 23(a)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy threshold requirements, including sufficient size, common legal or factual questions, typical claims by the representatives, adequate representation, and an identifiable membership. The court found that all three proposed classes satisfied these requirements. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from centralized Department of Correction policies, that the named plaintiffs’ experiences were sufficiently typical, and that the plaintiffs and their attorneys could adequately represent the proposed classes. It also found that the classes could be identified using detention and medical records.

Rule 23(b)(2)

The court denied certification of any proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2), which generally applies when a single injunction or similar court order would provide relief to the class as a whole. The plaintiffs proposed a medical-monitoring program for people exposed to COVID-19. The court found that the requested monitoring would apply primarily to people who had contracted COVID-19, would require individualized assessments based on medical histories and conditions, and was accompanied by claims for individualized monetary damages for the same injuries. Those circumstances made Rule 23(b)(2) certification inappropriate.

Rule 23(b)(3)

The court found that the Positive for COVID Class satisfied the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which permits a damages-focused class action when common questions predominate and a class action is the superior method for resolving the dispute. The court reasoned that members of this class allegedly suffered the same injury—contracting COVID-19—as a result of the same centralized policies, making common issues more manageable than individualized issues.

The court also certified a modified Medically Vulnerable Class under Rule 23(b)(3). The modified class includes only detainees whom the Department of Correction housed in North Infirmary Command, the Elmhurst Hospital Prison Ward, or the Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward. The court removed people who merely passed through Rikers Island and were over age 50, as well as people described only generally as “medically vulnerable,” because the narrower definition was more manageable and focused on people housed in specific medical units.

The court declined to certify the All Rikers Class under Rule 23(b)(3). That proposed class covered more than 10,000 detainees housed in different facilities for different lengths of time over a three-year period. The court concluded that individualized questions about each person’s facility, timing, conditions, exposure, and damages would outweigh the common issues.

Representatives, counsel, and disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to serve as class representatives and appointed Keenan & Bhatia, LLC as class counsel. The court therefore granted in part the motion for class certification, certified the Positive for COVID Class and the modified Medically Vulnerable Class under Rule 23(b)(3), declined to certify the All Rikers Class, and denied certification of all proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(2). The court did not decide whether the challenged conditions ultimately violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional or statutory rights. It directed the parties to propose next steps and directed the Clerk to close the member cases and related cases as specified in the order.