Wood v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT

Background

Chadd Wood brought this pro se employment case against ViacomCBS/Paramount. He asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also alleged violations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines.

In 2021, the company required employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine before returning to in-person work. Employees could request medical or religious exemptions. Wood submitted a medical exemption request supported by tribal medical documents, but the company denied it because the documents referred to a possible allergic reaction rather than a current condition that made him medically unable to receive the vaccine. Wood later requested a religious exemption based on his membership in the Xi-Amaru Tribal Government and his Indigenous Islam beliefs. The company denied that request as well. Wood refused vaccination, and his employment ended in 2022.

The court had previously dismissed Wood’s first amended complaint. It allowed him to replead his ADA, New York State, and New York City claims, but dismissed his other federal claims with prejudice. Wood filed a second amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Wood did not file opposition papers.

ADA Claims

The court construed the second amended complaint as asserting ADA claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and retaliation.

For the discrimination and accommodation claims, the court held that Wood did not plead enough facts to show that he had a disability under the ADA. His complaint made general statements that vaccines could trigger a severe allergic reaction, but it did not provide factual information establishing that he had an allergy, identify what he was allergic to, describe past allergic reactions, or explain how the alleged allergy substantially limited a major life activity. The tribal medical documents likewise stated only that the vaccine could cause a massive allergic reaction and did not explain how the alleged condition affected his daily life. Because Wood did not adequately allege an ADA disability, the court dismissed both his discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, including his allegation that the company failed to engage in the required interactive accommodation process.

The court dismissed the ADA retaliation claim because Wood did not exhaust that claim through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His charge checked a box for genetic information but did not check the retaliation box, and the court found no basis to interpret the charge as including retaliation. The court added that dismissal would also be proper on the merits: although Wood alleged protected activity, employer knowledge, and termination, he did not plead facts plausibly connecting his termination to his exemption request rather than to his failure to comply with the existing vaccine requirement.

Other Federal Claims

The court dismissed the OSHA claim because OSHA does not authorize employees to bring private lawsuits in federal court; enforcement responsibility belongs to the Secretary of Labor.

The CDC-related claim also failed. Wood did not identify the CDC guidelines involved or allege facts showing that the company violated them. The court further explained that CDC COVID-19 guidance consisted of recommendations rather than legally binding mandates and did not create a private right to sue.

The court did not reconsider Wood’s GINA claim because the September 2024 order had already dismissed all GINA claims with prejudice. The court also addressed Wood’s references to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, explaining that the complaint itself showed that the company reviewed his tribal medical documents, although it found them insufficient.

State and City Claims

Wood also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal-question jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice to litigation in a forum with jurisdiction to hear them.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. It dismissed Wood’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state and city claims without prejudice. The court denied Wood further leave to amend because he had already received an opportunity to correct the complaint, had not fixed the identified defects, and had not requested another amendment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to enter judgment, terminate the pending motions, and close the case.