Bowen v. Methodist Fremont Health
| Decision Date | 16 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | 8:19CV270 |
| Parties | SERINA BOWEN, Plaintiff, v. METHODIST FREMONT HEALTH, FREMONT HEALTH, MIDLAND UNIVERSITY, FREMONT COMMUNITY HEALTH RESOURCES, KAREN HAASE, KSB SCHOOL LAW, PC, LLO, MARK VOSS, in his individual and official capacity; JACKIE BEATEN, in her individual and official capacity; BETHANY CHILDERS, in her individual and official capacity; and MERRITT NELSON, in his individual and official capacity; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Methodist Fremont Health ("Methodist Health"), Fremont Health, Fremont Community Health Resources ("Community Health"), Mark Voss, Jackie Beaten, and Bethany Childers (collectively "Fremont Health Defendants"), ECF No. 51; the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Midland University and Merritt Nelson (collectively "Midland Defendants"), ECF No. 55; and the Motion to Amend filed by Plaintiff Serina Bowen, ECF No. 67. For the reasons stated below, each motion will be granted in part.
The following is a summary of facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 35, assumed true for purposes of the Motions to Dismiss.
Bowen began working for Fremont Health at the Fremont Health Medical Center in July 2014. She worked most recently as a Student Health Registered Nurse ("RN") and was placed at Midland University, an institution of higher education in Fremont, Nebraska. Bowen also worked intermittently as an athletic trainer for Midland University. Nelson was Midland University's Vice President for Student Affairs and was Bowen's immediate supervisor at Midland University.
Before October 2018, Voss was Manager of Community Health for Fremont Heath and Bowen's supervisor.1 Childers was Director of Human Resources at Fremont Health. Beaten was Director of Public Relations, Marketing, and Volunteers at Fremont Health.
In September 2017, a female Midland University student disclosed to Bowen that she had been sexually assaulted off-campus. Pursuant to policy, Bowen referred the student to a counselor. Beginning in October 2017, and continuing for the duration of Bowen's employment, Nelson repeatedly demanded that Bowen provide him with confidential student/patient health information regarding that student and other Midland University students. Bowen repeatedly refused the requests, because she believed it was illegal for her to provide the information to Nelson. Bowen alleges that Nelson responded by humiliating, harassing, and micromanaging her, and changing her work expectations.
In January 2018, Bowen reported Nelson's requests and conduct, as well as her opposition thereto, to Childers and Deb Jurino, Risk Manager for Fremont Health. No action was taken in response.
At some point,2 Bowen sent an email to Defendant Karen Haase, an attorney and Director and Vice President of Defendant KSB School Law, PC, LLO, ("KSB"), a Nebraska Corporation, seeking confidential legal advice regarding Nelson's demands. Specifically, Bowen inquired whether it was unlawful to share confidential student health information with Nelson whether such disclosure would violate laws that regulated her nursing license. On March 7, 2018, a KSB employee telephoned Bowen and requested additional information. During this conversation, Bowen asked that future communications be sent to her personal cell phone or personal email account.
Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 35, Page ID 110. Voss forwarded the email to Beaton the following morning.
On March 12, 2018, employees of Methodist Health, Fremont Health, and/or Community Health, directed Bowen to leave work immediately and report to a meeting at the hospital the following day. On March 13, 2018, Bowen met with Voss, Beaten, and Childers. Bowen was told that, due to the communication she had with Haase and KSB,Nelson refused to work with Bowen and she was terminated from her placement at Midland University. Bowen was also given the option to resign or be terminated from her employment with Fremont Health. At the meeting, Bowen inquired about other open RN positions and was told there were no positions available for her despite numerous open RN positions at the hospital. Bowen later applied for a position with the hospital but did not receive an interview. Bowen was also terminated from her athletic trainer position with Midland University on March 13, 2018.
In May and September 2018, Bowen filed charges of discrimination and retaliation with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission ("NEOC"). In June 2019, Bowen initiated this action. She alleges violations of her First Amendment rights to free speech and association, tortious interference with business relationships, negligence, retaliation, sex discrimination, and certain claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including conspiracy.
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Corrado v. Life Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 804 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Zink v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1089, 1098 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at678), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2941 (2015). The Court must accept factual allegations as true, but it is not required to accept any "legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 373 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
On a motion to dismiss, courts must rule "on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true," and "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and 'that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Mickelson v. Cty. of Ramsey, 823 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
Because many of Bowen's claims are not viable unless her Motion to Amend is granted, the Court will address her Motion to Amend first, and then each individual claim.
"The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "A district court may appropriately deny leave to amend where there are compelling reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment." Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted). A proposed amendment is futile if it could not survive a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. In reSenior Cottages of Am., LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007). "A decision whether to allow a party to amend her complaint is left to the sound discretion of the district court . . . ." Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).
Defendants assert that Bowen's request to amend is futile. Midland Defendants also argue undue delay and prejudice, pointing to the number of proposed amendments, the time the case has been pending, and merits of the motions to dismiss.
Bowen's initial Complaint, filed on June 21, 2019, was not served on Midland University. In September 2019, she filed an Amended Complaint that was served on Midland University. On December 18, 2019, the Court granted Bowen's Unopposed Motion to Amend and she filed her Second Amended Complaint which added Nelson as a Defendant. On January 13, 2020, the Court granted the Midland Defendants an extension of time to respond. On January 27, 2020, the Midland Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Bowen then requested leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and the Midland Defendants filed a brief in opposition. On March 6, 2020, Bowen requested leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. On March 9, 2020, the Court granted the Midland Defendants a ten-day extension to file a reply brief on their Motion to Dismiss. Bowen then withdrew her request to file the Third Amended Complaint leaving only Bowen's request to file her Fourth Amended Complaint.
Although Bowen has filed multiple complaints, this is her first request for leave to amend that was met with opposition. The Midland Defendants have not answered any previous complaint and they do not argue that discovery has...
To continue reading
Request your trial