Phillips v. White Plains Hospital

Background

Tia Phillips, Cherry Todd, and Stephanie Henao, who had formerly worked for White Plains Hospital, applied in 2021 for medical exemptions from the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Each submitted nearly identical documentation from Dr. Amaru Xi-Ali. The documents stated that forced vaccination was an “ACT OF GENOCIDE” and that a genetic condition could cause a severe allergic reaction and other effects. The hospital denied the exemption requests.

The plaintiffs sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, New York’s Human Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and New York Penal Law § 135.60. The hospital moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The plaintiffs, who were representing themselves, did not submit an opposition. The court nevertheless decided the motion on its merits, and it considered the medical-exemption applications because the complaint relied on them.

Court’s Analysis

ADA claims

The court held that the ADA claims were time-barred because the plaintiffs alleged that their injuries occurred in 2021 but did not file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission until March 4, 2024. The ADA generally required them to begin that administrative process within 300 days of the alleged discrimination. The court stated that the untimeliness was apparent from the face of the complaint.

The court also held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged an ADA disability. The complaint did not describe the claimed disability in detail, and the medical documents said only that a genetic variation could cause a severe allergic reaction. The court found that the allegations did not explain the alleged condition’s frequency, duration, or severity.

The court separately rejected the plaintiffs’ apparent claim that the hospital regarded them as disabled. The plaintiffs alleged that the hospital denied their exemption requests, but they did not plausibly allege that this decision was based on the hospital’s perception that they had a disability. The court also relied on Second Circuit authority rejecting the theory that an employee is regarded as disabled merely because the employee refused or failed to comply with a company-wide vaccination policy.

Section 1983 claims

Section 1983 permits claims for certain constitutional violations committed by state actors. The court held that the plaintiffs did not allege that White Plains Hospital was a state actor or that its conduct was sufficiently connected to the state to be treated as state conduct. The court took judicial notice that the hospital was a not-for-profit hospital and found that the plaintiffs provided no facts showing that its actions were fairly attributable to the state or involved a willing joint activity with state officials.

New York Human Rights Law claims

The court held that the plaintiffs’ state-law disability claims also failed. Although New York’s Human Rights Law provides broader disability protections than the ADA and does not require proof that a disability substantially limits a major life activity, the plaintiffs still had to allege an actual or perceived medical impairment. The court found that an unspecified genetic variation that might cause a severe allergic reaction was too conclusory and speculative to state a plausible claim.

Criminal-law claims

The court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue their claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and New York Penal Law § 135.60 because private individuals cannot use those criminal provisions to initiate civil lawsuits or criminal proceedings in federal court. The opinion stated that the federal and state criminal provisions did not provide a private cause of action.

Disposition

The court granted White Plains Hospital’s motion to dismiss in full. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Instead, the court allowed the plaintiffs, if they wished, to file a third amended complaint within 30 days of the opinion. Any third amended complaint must completely replace the Second Amended Complaint and include all claims, defendants, and factual allegations the plaintiffs want the court to consider. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail the opinion to the plaintiffs.