Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Ctrs.

Decision Date10 April 2015
Docket NumberCase No. 8:14–cv–1576–T–33AEP.
Citation103 F.Supp.3d 1303
PartiesSara HELLWEGE, Plaintiff, v. TAMPA FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS, and Chad L. Lindsey, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

David Andrew Cortman, Lawrenceville, GA, Matthew S. Bowman, Steven H. Aden, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, Robert L. Klucik, Jr., Robert L. Klucik Jr., PA, Ave Maria, FL, for Plaintiff.

J. Brennan Donnelly, Melanie Leitman, Messer Caparello, PA, Tallahassee, FL, John W. Campbell, Constangy, Michael Dennis Malfitano, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Chad L. Lindsey's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 43), filed on February 18, 2015, and Defendant Tampa Family Health Center's (TFHC) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support) (Doc. # 45), filed on February 19, 2015. Plaintiff Sara Hellwege filed a response in opposition to the Motions on March 4, 2015 (Doc. # 46), and March 5, 2015 (Doc. # 47), respectively. Upon due consideration, the Motions are granted in part.

I. Factual Background

When Hellwege initiated this action, on June 27, 2014, she was about to graduate from Frontier Nursing University and take her board examinations to become a “licensed advanced practice nurse” in the state of Florida. (Doc. # 41 at ¶¶ 10–11). Hellwege identifies herself as a Christian. (Id.at ¶ 13). Hellwege believes “in the inherent dignity of human life from the point of conception/fertilization.” (Id.). “Consistent with these strongly-held religious beliefs and moral convictions, Ms. Hellwege possesses beliefs against prescribing hormonal contraceptives in certain circumstances, which she believes have the potential to act in a manner potentially threatening the lives of embryos after their conception/fertilization.” (Id.at ¶ 14). As part of her exercise of these beliefs, Hellwege is a member of the American Association of Pro–Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). (Id.at ¶ 15).

In April of 2014—as well as on other dates—TFHC advertised at least four open positions for certified nurse-midwives at its various locations in the Tampa, Florida area. (Id.at ¶ 19). The United States Department of Health and Human Services' Health Resources and Services Administration likewise advertised these positions on its website. (Id.at ¶ 20). Hellwege submits that she was eligible to apply for these positions given her “then-pending and now completed graduation, examination, and certification process.” (Id.at ¶ 21).

On April 28, 2014, Hellwege emailed Lindsey of TFHC's Human Resources Department to inquire whether the positions were still open and attached her resume for his review. (Id.at ¶¶ 22–23). This exchange culminated in a May 13, 2014, email from Lindsey which stated: “Good morning. Due to the fact that we are a Title X organization1and you are an [sic] member of AAPLOG, we would be unable to move forward in the interviewing process. An [sic] unfortunately, we do not have any positions for antepartum & laborist only.” (Id.at ¶ 27). That same day, Hellwege responded to Lindsey to clarify that she was not only seeking an antepartum and laborist position but would also “accept a position including postpartum and well woman/preventative care as well as antepartum and laborist care, consistent with her religious beliefs.” (Id.at ¶ 28). Hellwege then asked whether she would be able to move forward in the application process in light of this clarification. (Id.). Lindsey never responded. (Id.at ¶ 29). Hellwege contends that she was refused the opportunity to continue in the application process (Id.at ¶ 30), but the position remained open, as TFHC “continued to seek applicants” following Hellwege's denial of the opportunity to interview for employment. (Id.at ¶ 85).

Hellwege initiated this action on June 27, 2014. (SeeDoc. # 1). On February 4, 2015, Hellwege timely filed an Amended Complaint with the written consent of Defendants, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). (Doc. # 41). Hellwege contends that Lindsey—and in turn TFHC—refused to allow her to continue in the application process for any of the certified nurse midwife positions, due to her “membership in AAPLOG and her associated religious and moral beliefs against participating in certain prescriptions of some hormonal contraceptives.” (Id.at ¶¶ 30–31). Hellwege asserts that this refusal violates federal and state law. (Id.at ¶¶ 32, 46–49). In particular, the Amended Complaint lists the following claims for relief:

(I) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 300a–7;
(II) Violation of Fla. Stat. § 381.0051(5);2
(III) Violation of Fla. Stat. § 390.0111(8);3
(IV) Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.(TFHC only); and(V) Violation of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.01 et seq.(TFHC only).

(See Id.). Lindsey filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 18, 2015. (Doc. # 43). Thereafter, TFHC filed a Motion a Dismiss on February 19, 2015. (Doc. # 45). Both Motions are ripe for the Court's review.

II. Legal Standard

On a motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true all of the factual allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms.,372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir.2004). Further, this Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable inferences from the allegations in the complaint.Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.,901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir.1990)(“On a motion to dismiss, the facts stated in [the] complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as true.”). However, the Supreme Court explains that:

While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)(internal citations omitted). Further, courts are not “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain,478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986).

In accordance with Twombly,Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)calls “for sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)(quoting Twombly,550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A plausible claim for relief must include “factual content [that] allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

III. Count I

Count I of Hellwege's Amended Complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 300a–7(collectively known as the “Church Amendments after former Senator Frank Church). (SeeDoc. # 41). Specifically, Hellwege contends that TFHC and Lindsey violated section (d) of the Church Amendments “when they refused to allow [Hellwege] to be considered or continue in the application process for certified nurse midwife positions at TFHC, based on her religious or moral objections to participate in certain services, and/or based on her membership in AAPLOG in connection with those convictions.” (Id.at ¶ 65). Further, Hellwege contends that TFHC and Lindsey have violated sections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Church Amendments “by discriminating against [Hellwege] due to her religious and moral objection to performing or assisting in the performance of certain activities specified herein.” (Id.at ¶ 67).

A. What are the Church Amendments?

The “conscience provisions” contained in the Church Amendments “were enacted at various times during the 1970s to make clear that receipt of Federal funds did not require the recipients of such funds to perform abortions or sterilizations.” Regulation for the Enforcement of Federal Health Care Provider Conscience Protection Laws,

76 FR 9968–02 (Feb. 23, 2011). In this case, the Court is called upon to determine whether sections (c)(1), (c)(2), or (d) of the Church Amendments contain language that confers on individuals, such as Hellwege, a private right of action. These sections state as follows:

(c) Discrimination prohibition.
(1) No entity which receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act ... may—
(A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or
(B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel,
because he performed or assisted in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions.
(2) No entity which receives after the date of enactment of this paragraph a grant or contract for biomedical or behavioral research under any program administered by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare may—
(A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or
(B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel,
because he performed or assisted in the performance of any lawful health
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Azar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • November 19, 2019
    ...She applied for a position as an antepartum, laborist, postpartum, and preventative care nurse. Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers , 103 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1306 (M.D. Fla. 2015). If the health center had not been able to inquire about any ethical objections she had to doing those jobs, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT