Doe v. Hosp. of Univ. of Pa.

• Decision Date: 29 June 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2881-KSM
• Citation: 546 F.Supp.3d 336
• Parties: Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. The HOSPITAL OF UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

546 F.Supp.3d 336

Jane DOE, Plaintiff,

v.The HOSPITAL OF UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2881-KSM

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed June 29, 2021

Julie Chovanes, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Joe H. Tucker, Jr., Kathleen Kirkpatrick, Leslie Miller Greenspan, Tucker Law Group, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants The Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, The University of Pennsylvania, The University Of Pennsylvania Health System, Dr. Octavia Pickett-Blakely.

Kathleen Kirkpatrick, The Tucker Law Group, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants John Does 1-10, Police Officers Richard Roes 1-10.

MEMORANDUM

MARSTON, District Judge Plaintiff Jane Doe sued the Hospital of University of Pennsylvania ("HUP"), the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (the "Trustees"), the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn"), the University of Pennsylvania Health System ("Penn Health System"), Dr. Octavia Pickett-Blakely, Medical Personnel John Does 1–10, and Penn Police Officers Richard Roes 1–10, after receiving a colonoscopy at HUP and experiencing allegedly discriminatory treatment during her post-procedure recovery. (Doc. Nos. 1 & 19.) Doe, a transgender ("trans") woman and HUP employee, alleges that she has a sensitivity to anesthesia and became disoriented after her procedure, and that the Penn Police Officer Defendants restrained her, threw her into a wheelchair, handcuffed her, and wheeled her—topless—through the hospital, leaving her on the street. (Id. )

Presently before the Court is the Trustees, HUP, Penn Health System, and Dr. Pickett-Blakely's (the "Penn Defendants’ ") partial motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 25.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion is granted in part, and denied in part.

I. Factual Background

Accepting all allegations in the amended complaint as true, the relevant facts are as follows.

Jane Doe is a transgender woman. (Doc. No. 19 at ¶¶ 1, 39.) Doe has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria ("GD"). (Id. at ¶ 47.) According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, ("DSM-V"), GD is a diagnosis " ‘associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning’ for the trans person." (Id. at ¶ 44.) Trans individuals are diagnosed with GD when they experience "clinically significant distress" associated with being trans. (Id. at ¶ 45.)

Doe was a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA") at HUP and was "out as a trans woman" at HUP. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Doe participated in an LGBT employee group providing education and policy guidance for the treatment of LGBT individuals at HUP. (Id. )

On February 20, 2018, Doe went to HUP as a patient for a routine diagnostic colonoscopy, and Dr. Pickett-Blakely was the doctor in charge of her care. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 28, 53.) Doe's friend, Mary Roe, accompanied Doe to HUP that day. (Id. at ¶ 53.) When Doe and Roe arrived and checked Doe in at the reception desk, the receptionist used Doe's old male name and used masculine pronouns to refer to her, despite the fact that Doe's current name was correct in the system. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 55.) In doing so, the receptionist misgendered Doe and ignored HUP policy. (Id. ) And this was not the end of the matter; rather, Doe continued to be misgendered and addressed by her old male name throughout the time she was at HUP for her colonoscopy, despite the fact that Doe and Roe repeatedly corrected the staff. (Id. at ¶ 67.)

Doe has a sensitivity to anesthesia. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Doe and Roe informed Defendants that Doe's recovery needed to be handled properly and provided specific instructions regarding her sensitivity to anesthesia and the nature of her post-procedure anesthesia recovery. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 54.) Defendants ignored Doe's warnings and instructions. (Id. at ¶ 5.) As a result, when Doe woke up in the recovery room, she was disoriented and agitated. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 57.) Doe did not know where she was and panicked. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–9.)

Defendants failed to provide Doe with any medication to treat her agitation and disorientation, even though it had been requested by the on-site doctor. (Id. at ¶ 7.) They also ignored Doe's escalating panic. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Doe's agitation increased when she was ignored, so she climbed out of bed and stood, seeking help. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 57.) But even in the face of this, Defendants continued to ignore her and failed to provide any medical treatment. (Id. at ¶ 57.)

The situation continued to escalate. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Standing in her recovery room, partially naked, with no hospital gown on, Doe screamed and begged for help, to no avail. (Id. at ¶¶ 58–59, 63.) Eventually, Doe tried to leave but was restrained. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Doe fought back. (Id. ) The Penn police arrived, forcibly entering the room. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 61.) When the police officers closed in on a disoriented Doe, she panicked even more (see id. at ¶¶ 61–62) and experienced a flashback to a rape incident she had suffered years earlier (id. at ¶ 64). Doe screamed and pled for the men to leave the room. (Id. at ¶ 64.)

Doe's pleas were unsuccessful. (See id. ) Instead, the Police Officer Defendants ganged up on Doe and physically subdued her, dumped her into a wheelchair, held her down, handcuffed her, and wheeled her—still partially naked (topless and shoeless)—through the hospital. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 65–66.) Then the Police Officers Defendants left Doe on the street. (Id. at ¶ 10.) During this entire incident, no one offered Doe any medical assistance. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

Afterwards, Roe took Doe to another health care institution "to deal with the bruises and wounds she suffered at the hands of Defendants." (Id. at ¶ 69.)

Subsequently, Doe's GD flared up and she was unable to return to work at HUP on February 21, 2018, as she has planned to do—which was not only the place the incident took place but also her workplace. (Id. at ¶¶ 68, 79.)

The following week, on February 28, 2018, Doe saw a provider, who gave her a note stating that Doe was "unable to work starting Feb 20, 2018 until medical clearance to return to work is granted." (Id. at ¶ 70.) On March 22, HUP's Disability Management Office received Doe's request for leave as a reasonable accommodation. (Id. at ¶ 71.) On April 6, HUP sent a letter to Doe granting approval of one more week of leave, to April 15, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 72.)

On April 12, shortly before her leave expired, Doe informed HUP that she would be requesting her ADA leave be extended for approximately another month and a half, until May 29, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 73.) On May 17, HUP notified Doe by letter that her leave would be granted until May 28. (Id. at ¶ 74.) HUP informed Doe that "operational needs preclude UPHS from continuing to hold your position for you beyond May 28, 2018" and that her position would be filled if she did not return to work. (Id. ) On June 7, HUP sent Doe another letter, this time stating that if Doe did not return on June 19, 2018, her employment would be terminated and her position would be filled. (Id. at ¶ 75.) Doe did not return to work on June 19, and on June 26, HUP sent her a letter stating that because she did not return, her employment with Penn Health System was terminated. (Id. at ¶ 76.) HUP fired Doe on June 28.¹ (Id. at ¶ 81.)

Doe claims there was never any discussion of reasonable accommodation for her disability and that Defendants acted with "transphobic hatred." (See, e.g. , id. at ¶¶ 72, 74–78, 80, 90.)

Ultimately, Doe was unable to seek employment for months after the incident. (Id. at ¶ 82.)

A year later, on February 29, 2019, Doe wrote to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's then-Secretary of Health, Dr. Rachel Levine for help. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 83.) The state initiated an investigation into HUP's treatment of Doe. (Id. ) Lorena Renee Cromartie, MSN, BSN, RN—a Health Facility Quality Examiner Supervisor for the Department of Health's Bureau of Facility Licensure and Certification—led the investigation. (Id. )

On March 14, 2019, Cromartie provided Doe with a partial update and told her that HUP's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Neil O. Fishman, admitted that "a number of [HUP's] internal processes have been reviewed and revised based on this incident." (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 84.)

Nonetheless, Doe's medical records do not contain any reference to the February 20 incident. (Id. at ¶¶ 18, 85.) Doe alleges that HUP and other Defendants falsified Doe's medical records. (Id. )

II. Procedural History

On April 13, 2019, Doe filed charges of sex and disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").² (Id. at ¶ 33.) The EEOC issued a right to sue letter to Doe on May 13, 2019 (id. at ¶ 34), and on July 2, 2019, Doe initiated this action against HUP, the Trustees, Penn, Penn Health System, Dr. Pickett-Blakely, John Does 1–10, and Penn Police Officers Richard Roes 1–10 (see Doc. No. 1).

In her original complaint, Doe brought claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), false imprisonment, violation of the right of privacy, and medical malpractice against all Defendants. (Id. (Counts I–VI).) Doe also claimed that all Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII"), and that all Defendants violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act. (Id. (Counts VII & XI & XII).) Further, Doe claimed that HUP wrongfully terminated her and violated Title I of the ADA. (Id. (Counts VIII & IX).) Last, Doe alleged that the Trustees, Penn, and Police Officers Richard Roe 1–10 violated Title II of the ADA. (Id. (Count X).)

A few months later, on October 3, 2019, Doe filed an amended complaint. (See Doc. No. 19.) When she amended her complaint, Doe removed the medical malpractice claim against all Defendants and added claims for reckless conduct, gross negligence, and negligence against all Defendant...