Ahmed v. Merck & Co

Background

Tahira Ahmed, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. She alleged that records concerning Gardasil vaccinations she received at the Fashion Institute of Technology were forged and that she therefore did not know what she had been injected with. She sought $163,000,000 in damages.

The opinion describes inconsistencies in the dates listed for the vaccination rounds. It states that the complaint and an attachment identify dates in 2011, while other information in the attachment suggested that the first round may have occurred in 2010 and that a date may have been entered incorrectly. Ahmed alleged that the New York City Department of Vaccines and Immunizations had no record of the vaccinations and that the vaccination record was obviously forged.

Ahmed named Merck & Co as the defendant because Merck created Gardasil. She did not name the Fashion Institute of Technology, and she did not state whether she was employed there, a student there, or otherwise affiliated with it when she received the vaccine.

Court’s analysis

Because Ahmed was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under the screening statute, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must interpret a self-represented person’s allegations liberally, while still requiring facts that make a claim plausible.

As to Merck, the court concluded that Ahmed did not state a claim under federal or state law. The court noted that Merck did not administer the Gardasil vaccine, that Ahmed did not allege harm from the vaccine, and that she did not allege that a Merck representative was present when she was vaccinated. The court therefore found that it did not appear that Ahmed could state a claim against Merck based on the allegations then presented. It dismissed the claims against Merck for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), while allowing 30 days to replead.

As to the Fashion Institute of Technology, the court construed the complaint as potentially asserting claims against the school because Ahmed alleged that she received the vaccine there and referred to federal anti-discrimination laws. The court allowed Ahmed 30 days to add the school as a defendant and provide facts supporting her claims. The court stated that a Title VII claim would require facts suggesting that Ahmed was employed at the school and explaining how the school discriminated against her. If she was claiming disability discrimination, the court said she would need to describe her disability and how the school discriminated against her.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Ahmed’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court directed the clerk to hold the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.