Prager v.Allina Health

Background

Jeffrey J. Prager sued Allina Health, Dr. Ramsey Peterson, and Ms. Kathy Burville. The opinion refers to these defendants collectively as “Allina.” Prager had been an Allina patient for approximately ten years, mainly at a Richfield, Minnesota, clinic.

On May 7, 2021, Prager arrived at the clinic for a routine Vitamin-D-deficiency test wearing a clear plastic face shield. Clinic staff told him he would not be treated unless he wore a paper face mask. Prager showed staff Minnesota Executive Order 20-81 and said he was exempt because wearing a paper mask would impede his breathing. He ultimately wore a mask. He alleged that the mask caused breathing problems, reduced oxygen intake, increased carbon dioxide intake, hypoxia, and possible exposure to graphene particles.

Prager sought $2,000 for the alleged violation of the executive order, $10,000 for the alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violation, and treble damages.

Motion to dismiss standard

Allina moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, but it need not accept conclusory statements or unsupported legal conclusions. A complaint must contain enough factual detail to make the requested relief plausible rather than merely speculative.

Executive-order claim

The court held that Executive Order 20-81 did not create a private right of action—a legal right allowing an individual to sue for a violation. The order authorized the Minnesota attorney general and city and county attorneys to seek civil relief and encouraged state and local regulators to use existing enforcement tools. It did not authorize an individual claim for damages or other relief based on an alleged violation. The court therefore held that Prager’s enforcement claim failed as a matter of law.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Prager alleged that he was a disabled American who was treated differently from other Allina patients, but he did not identify his disability or allege specific facts describing an Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The court explained that even if he intended to bring a Title III public-accommodation claim, he needed to allege, among other things, that he had a disability, that Allina took adverse action because of that disability, and that Allina failed to make a reasonable accommodation without fundamentally changing the nature of its services.

The court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Allina’s clinics and hospitals could qualify as public accommodations and that allowing a face shield instead of a cloth face covering might be a reasonable accommodation. Even so, it found that Prager had not adequately alleged a disability or that Allina acted against him because of one. The court stated that Allina appeared to be enforcing a public-health policy rather than acting based on Prager’s disability.

The court also noted that the executive order permitted face shields as an alternative to cloth masks in some situations. It observed that Allina appeared to have applied a one-size-fits-all policy and failed to recognize Prager’s individual concerns, and said Allina could have treated him with greater dignity. The court nevertheless concluded that these observations were not enough to support the Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

Disposition

The court granted Allina’s motion to dismiss. The order stated that the matter was dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.