D'Cunha v. Northwell Health Systems

Background

Candice D’Cunha, a former medical resident at Staten Island University Hospital, sued Northwell Health Systems under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She asserted three claims: religious discrimination, sex discrimination based on pregnancy, and disability discrimination.

Northwell announced a requirement that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine by September 27, 2021, subject to religious or medical exemptions. D’Cunha requested both a religious exemption and a medical exemption based on pregnancy. Northwell denied both requests and denied her appeals. It then terminated her employment after she remained unvaccinated.

D’Cunha filed two discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. One charge alleged sex discrimination and the other alleged religious discrimination. Neither charge checked the disability-discrimination box. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, D’Cunha filed this case and later amended her complaint. Northwell moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Religious-discrimination claim

The court held that D’Cunha did not plausibly allege religious discrimination. It found no allegations of religiously degrading criticism, hostile comments about her religious group, or more favorable treatment of employees outside that group. The complaint instead alleged that Northwell terminated her because it required vaccination, not because of her religion.

The court also rejected D’Cunha’s argument that Northwell violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs. Under Title VII, an employer need not provide an accommodation that creates an undue hardship. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that Title VII does not require a healthcare employer to provide a blanket religious exemption allowing employees to continue working unvaccinated in their existing positions. The court found that Northwell had identified an unacceptable health and safety threat to patients, coworkers, and visitors if an unvaccinated employee provided direct patient care.

The court further concluded that D’Cunha had not plausibly alleged that she was qualified for the position because Northwell treated vaccination as a condition of employment for patient-facing healthcare workers. The court dismissed the religious-discrimination claim.

Sex-discrimination claim

The court treated pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination under Title VII. It held that D’Cunha had not plausibly alleged that Northwell terminated her because of her sex or pregnancy. Her allegation that Northwell had accommodated some employees’ pregnancies was made only on information and belief and was unsupported by factual allegations. The court also stated that, even if some pregnant employees had received accommodations, that fact would undermine rather than support an inference of sex discrimination.

As with the religious-discrimination claim, the court concluded that D’Cunha had not plausibly alleged that she was qualified for the position because she had not met Northwell’s vaccination requirement. The court dismissed the sex-discrimination claim.

Disability-discrimination claim

D’Cunha alleged that Northwell perceived her as having impaired immunity or as being a carrier or potential carrier of an infectious disease. The court held that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges alleged only religious and sex discrimination and did not provide adequate notice of disability discrimination. The court stated that the substance of a charge controls, rather than merely the box selected, but found that the reference to having a high COVID-19 antibody count did not give adequate notice of a disability claim.

The court also held that D’Cunha alleged no facts supporting her assertion that Northwell perceived her as a carrier of an infectious disease. It explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects a person regarded as presently having an impairment, not merely someone perceived to be at risk of developing a future impairment. Finally, even assuming that D’Cunha had exhausted the claim, the court concluded that she had not plausibly alleged that she was qualified for the position because vaccination was a condition of employment in the healthcare field. The court dismissed the disability-discrimination claim.

Disposition

D’Cunha had already amended her complaint once. The court had given her an opportunity to say whether she intended to amend again, but she declined to do so and did not request leave to amend in opposition to the motion. The court therefore stated that the dismissal was with prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Northwell’s motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and directed the clerk to close the case.