Cooper v. SBH Health System

Background

Amber Cooper, proceeding without a lawyer, sued SBH Health System and four employees identified as David Perlstein, Keith Wolf, Manisha Kulshreshtha, and Karen Johnson. She alleged claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for race, color, and religious discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. She also asserted claims involving breach of contract, slander, violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and unspecified federal labor and employment laws.

Cooper alleged that she was paid less than a colleague, was treated unfairly at work, and was required to comply with SBH’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. She did not receive the vaccine and requested a religious exemption. She also mentioned possible alternatives, including fully remote work and weekly COVID-19 testing. She alleged that she was placed off duty without pay, that her exemption request was denied, that she faced misconduct accusations, and that she was terminated on November 26, 2021.

A similar case was pending in New York state court when Cooper filed this federal action. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing both that the federal court should refrain from hearing the case because of the parallel state case and that the complaint failed to state legally sufficient claims.

The request to refrain from hearing the case

The court held that the federal and state proceedings were parallel because they involved essentially identical complaints, parties, and issues. But it denied the defendants’ request to abstain under the rule from Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States. The court explained that federal courts generally must exercise their jurisdiction and that abstention is reserved for exceptional circumstances.

The court found that none of the six relevant factors favored abstention. Among other things, the state case had made little progress, the federal claims depended on federal law, and ordinary legal rules could address any risk of inconsistent results. The request for abstention was therefore denied.

Title VII claims

The court dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual defendants because individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII. It also dismissed Cooper’s Title VII discrimination claims against SBH. The court found that she did not allege her own race or ethnicity and did not provide facts connecting the alleged unequal pay or other unfair treatment to a protected characteristic. Her comparison to a higher-paid colleague did not adequately show that the colleague was similarly situated or that the pay difference resulted from discrimination.

The court also dismissed the religious failure-to-accommodate claim as pleaded. It ruled that granting the requested vaccine exemption would have required SBH to violate the New York State Department of Health’s vaccination mandate. Under controlling appellate precedent, that conflict created an undue hardship as a matter of law. The court noted that an employer might possibly accommodate a religious objection by arranging work that removed the employee from the mandate’s definition of covered personnel. Cooper had not adequately pleaded such a request, although her opposition mentioned fully remote work and weekly testing.

The retaliation claim was dismissed because the court concluded that SBH’s vaccination policy was not an unlawful employment practice and that Cooper did not otherwise identify an unlawful practice she opposed. The hostile-work-environment claim was dismissed because the alleged harassment about vaccination and workplace tensions were not adequately connected to religious or another protected characteristic and were not sufficiently severe or pervasive as alleged.

New York claims and other claims

Although the complaint expressly referred to Title VII, the court liberally construed it to include related discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court dismissed those claims for the same basic reasons: the requested vaccine exemption would have conflicted with the health mandate, and the complaint did not adequately allege discriminatory intent or a connection between a protected characteristic and the defendants’ conduct.

The court dismissed Cooper’s generalized labor and employment claims because she did not identify the laws allegedly violated or provide supporting facts. It dismissed the health-privacy claim because the health-privacy statute she cited does not provide an individual private right to sue. It dismissed the breach-of-contract claim because she did not identify the contract’s terms or provisions that the defendants allegedly violated.

The court also dismissed the slander claim. The alleged accusations made directly to Cooper were not published to a third party. To the extent she meant that statements were made to others, she did not identify the statements’ substance, timing, recipients, or other required details.

Disposition and amendment

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. It denied leave to amend for all claims except the failure-to-accommodate claim. Cooper may file an amended complaint by November 14, 2025, but only to allege additional facts—if such facts exist—about a lesser accommodation, such as fully remote work, that would have removed her from the health mandate’s definition of covered personnel.