Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-02170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center, Judge Furman granted defendants’ motions to dismiss federal claims and dismissed any state claims without prejudice.
Leslie Cheeks’s federal claims were dismissed, and the court did not allow another amendment of those claims. Any state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court. The defendants—Montefiore Medical Center, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, and 1199SEIU National Benefit and Training Fund—received dismissal of the claims asserted against them.
What happened
In Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center, Leslie Cheeks, who was representing herself, sued Montefiore Medical Center, her union, and an employee-benefit fund after Montefiore fired her for not complying with a COVID-19 vaccination requirement after denying her religious-exemption requests. She claimed violations of religious freedom, religious discrimination, employee-benefit law, and the union’s duty to represent her fairly.
The court dismissed the federal claims. It ruled that the defendants were private parties, not government actors, so the religious-freedom claim could not proceed. It also ruled that Cheeks did not allege that she completed required administrative procedures for her discrimination and benefit claims, and that her claim against the union was filed too late. The court declined to exercise authority over any state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, declined to allow Cheeks to amend her federal claims again, directed entry of judgment, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center · No. 1:23-cv-02170
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 28, 2023
Background
Leslie Cheeks worked at Montefiore Medical Center for twenty-three years. Montefiore fired her on or about October 30, 2021, for failing to comply with a state-required COVID-19 vaccination requirement after denying her requests for a religious exemption and accommodation. Cheeks sued Montefiore, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, the union to which she belonged, and 1199SEIU National Benefit and Training Fund, which administered her employee welfare benefit plan. She proceeded without a lawyer.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. Reading Cheeks’s amended complaint liberally, the court identified possible claims under the First Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court also considered any possible state-law claims.
First Amendment claim
The court dismissed Cheeks’s religious-freedom claim because the defendants were not state actors. The First Amendment and Section 1983, the federal statute used to bring constitutional claims against nonfederal parties, generally apply only to conduct fairly attributable to the government. The court held that Montefiore was a private hospital and that the union and benefit fund were also not state actors. New York’s vaccination regulation did not change that conclusion because, according to the court, Montefiore made the decision to terminate Cheeks rather than move her to a position outside the regulation’s coverage.
Title VII and ERISA claims
The court dismissed any claims under Title VII and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for failure to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies. For a Title VII claim, the court said, a plaintiff must first file a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and receive a notice allowing a lawsuit. For the benefit claim, the court said, the plaintiff must pursue the appeal process required by the benefit plan. Cheeks did not allege that she completed either process, and she did not assert that she had done so in her opposition to the motions.
Union representation claim
The court rejected Cheeks’s claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation as untimely. Such a claim had to be filed within six months after Cheeks knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged breach. The amended complaint stated that her benefits ended on October 16, 2021, and that her employment ended on October 30, 2021. Documents attached to the complaint showed that she was notified by mail about the benefit termination on or about December 15, 2021. The court therefore concluded that the latest filing deadline was June 15, 2022, while the lawsuit was filed on January 30, 2023.
State-law claims and final disposition
After dismissing all potential federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims. It dismissed Cheeks’s state-law claims, to the extent she pleaded any, without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It declined to grant Cheeks another opportunity to amend her federal claims because she had already amended once, had not requested another amendment, and had not suggested additional facts that could fix the identified problems. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment consistent with the opinion and close the case.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.