Lundstrom v. Contra Costa Health Services

Background

Margaret Lundstrom, representing herself, sued her former employer, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS), under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act. She alleged disability discrimination and retaliation based on CCHS’s COVID-19 policies, including testing, masking, vaccination, and related employment consequences.

Lundstrom worked for CCHS as a Public Health Nurse Case Manager from May 2017 through December 2021. She alleged that CCHS treated her as having a contagious disease or impaired immune and respiratory systems, required testing and temperature checks, suspended her without pay after she refused vaccination, and terminated her employment for failing to provide proof of vaccination or an approved exemption. She also alleged that CCHS retaliated against her after she objected to these policies and claimed protection under the disability law.

CCHS asked the court to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). CCHS argued that Lundstrom was neither disabled nor qualified under the law and that she had not adequately alleged retaliation. CCHS also argued that she should not receive permission to amend the complaint.

Discrimination claim

The court explained that a disability-discrimination claim requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability, can perform the essential functions of the job, and suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. The law recognizes, among other things, an impairment that substantially limits major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.

The court rejected Lundstrom’s theory that CCHS regarded her as disabled. It held that COVID-19 is generally temporary and therefore “transitory” under the law. Because being regarded as having COVID-19 is also based on a temporary condition, the court concluded that this theory did not establish a disability covered by the statute.

The court also rejected her “record of” disability theory. Lundstrom alleged that CCHS had misclassified her as having an impairment affecting her immune and respiratory systems. The court concluded that the alleged misclassification involved COVID-19 or something similar and did not support a disability-discrimination claim under the circumstances described.

The court did not decide CCHS’s separate argument that Lundstrom was not a qualified individual because she posed a direct threat to coworkers, patients, and clients. It stated that the argument appeared to have merit but was unnecessary to resolve because Lundstrom had not adequately alleged a covered disability. In a footnote, the court also said that any failure-to-accommodate claim would fail because the law does not require accommodation for an employee who alleges only that the employer regarded her as disabled, rather than an actual disability or a record of one.

Retaliation claim

The court held that Lundstrom had not plausibly alleged a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination. Her retaliation theory was based on opposing CCHS’s testing, masking, and vaccination policies and asserting rights under the disability law. But, according to the allegations and the parties’ filings, CCHS had adopted those policies before Lundstrom opposed them. The court therefore found it unreasonable to infer that her criticism caused her termination.

The court also noted that Lundstrom had not plausibly alleged that her opposition was protected activity under the disability law. Protected activity generally involves requesting a remedy under that law or challenging conduct that violates it. The court stated that Lundstrom had not plausibly alleged that CCHS’s policies violated the law or that refusing to follow them was a request for a legal remedy.

Disposition

The court found that amendment of both claims would be futile. It granted CCHS’s motion to dismiss the disability-discrimination claim with prejudice, granted the motion to dismiss the retaliation claim with prejudice, and granted the motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The court also vacated the hearing that had been scheduled for December 16, 2022.