Innes v. Cnty. of Warren

• Decision Date: 23 May 2023
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00641 (BKS/TWD)
• Parties: KATHLEEN A. INNES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WARREN, WARREN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL CARE, INC., CMC CORRECTIONAL CARE, and CBH MEDICAL, P.C., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

1

KATHLEEN A. INNES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WARREN, WARREN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL CARE, INC., CMC CORRECTIONAL CARE, and CBH MEDICAL, P.C., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00641 (BKS/TWD)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

May 23, 2023

Appearances:

For Plaintiff:

Chaya M. Gourarie

Tully Rinckey PLLC

For Defendants County of Warren and Warren County Correctional Facility:

Lawrence Elmen

For Defendants Correctional Medical Care, Inc., CMC Correctional Care, and CBH Medical, P.C.:

David S. Schwartz Law, PLLC

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

HON BRENDA K. SANNES, CHIEF, DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Kathleen Innes filed this action against Defendants County of Warren (“Warren County”), Warren County Correctional Facility (“WCCF”) (collectively, “County Defendants”), Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (“CMC”), CMC Correctional Care (“CMC II”), and CBH Medical, P.C. (“CBH”) (collectively, “CMC Defendants”), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290, et seq. (Dkt. No. 1).

County Defendants and CMC Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).^[1] (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16). Plaintiff opposes both motions, (Dkt. Nos. 22-24), and CMC Defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 25). For the following reasons, the Court grants both motions to dismiss.

II. MATERIALS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT

Because Defendants attach exhibits to their motions to dismiss, (Dkt. Nos. 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, 16-3), and Plaintiff attaches exhibits to her opposition papers, (Dkt. Nos. 22-1 to 22-9, 24),^[2]before setting forth the facts, the Court must determine which exhibits, if any, it may consider in deciding the motions. “Generally, consideration of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to consideration of the complaint itself.” Faulkner v. Beer, 463 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2006). However, considering “materials outside the complaint is not entirely foreclosed on a 12(b)(6) motion.” Id. A complaint “is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.” Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 230 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002)).

“Where a document is not incorporated by reference, the court may nevertheless consider it where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect, thereby rendering the document integral to the complaint.” Id. (quoting DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even where a document is integral to the complaint, it must be “clear” that “no dispute exists regarding the authenticity or accuracy of the document” and that “there exist no material disputed issues of fact regarding the relevance of the document.” Faulkner, 463 F.3d at 134. “[I]f material is not integral to or otherwise incorporated in the complaint, it may not be considered unless the motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment and all parties are ‘given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.'” Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 231 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d)).

CMC Defendants submit Plaintiff's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Charge of Discrimination. (Dkt. No. 16-3). Similarly, Plaintiff submits her EEOC Letter of Determination and two Notices of Right to Sue from March and June 2022. (Dkt. Nos. 22-7, 22-8, 22-9, 24-5, 24-6, 24-7, 24-8). Plaintiff's Complaint explicitly references these EEOC documents, (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 6-9), and thus the Court will consider them, see Taylor v. City of New York, 207 F.Supp.3d 293, 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly held that when EEOC charges are expressly referred to in the pleading, they may be considered incorporated by reference.” (citation omitted)). The Letter of Determination and Right to Sue letters are also public records that are subject to judicial notice. See Muhammad v. New York City Transit Auth., 450 F.Supp.2d 198, 204-05 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (finding EEOC's determination of the plaintiff's EEOC charge a matter of “public record[], of which this Court may take judicial notice”); Canady v. Union 1199/SEIU, 527 F.Supp.3d 515, 516 n.1 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (taking judicial notice of an EEOC right-to-sue letter). The court considers them “in order ‘to determine what statements [they] contained'-but ‘[] not for the truth of the matters asserted.'” Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007) (first alteration in original) (emphases omitted) (quoting Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991)).

Warren County submits the Warren County Board of Supervisors' Resolution No. 416 of 2016 (“Resolution No. 416”), which authorized the Chairman to enter into an agreement with CMC Defendants to provide services to inmates in WCCF. (Dkt. No. 15-2, at 2). Plaintiff's Complaint neither relies on nor references the Resolution. (See Dkt. No. 1). However, the Court may take judicial notice of Resolution No. 416. See Lewis v. Livingston Cnty. Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab., 30 F.Supp.3d 196, 203 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (taking judicial notice of a county resolution).

Warren County also submits the Health Services Agreement (“HSA”) between Warren County and CMC Defendants and the HSA's contract extension. (Dkt. Nos. 15-3, 15-4). CMC Defendants object to the consideration of the HSA on this motion, asserting that it is not integral to the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 25, at 8-9). The Court agrees. The HSA is neither attached to Plaintiff's Complaint nor incorporated by reference. The Complaint does not mention the has or in any way rest on it and the Court does not find it integral to the Complaint.^[3] The Court will therefore not consider it.

Plaintiff submits a termination letter from CMC Defendants to Plaintiff. (Dkt. Nos. 22-1, 24-1). Although Plaintiff's Complaint states that she was terminated, it does not describe how she was terminated and does not reference a termination letter. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 42). Since the letter is not referenced in or integral to Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court will not consider it. See Dechbery v. City of New York, No. 14-cv-2130, 2017 WL 11683338, at *3-4, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237107, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017) (declining to consider the plaintiff's termination letters in deciding a motion to dismiss).

Plaintiff also submits the CBH Employee Handbook, (Dkt. No. 22-2), which is not attached to, incorporated by reference in, or integral to the Complaint, (see Dkt. No. 1). Thus, the Court will not consider the Handbook. See Barker v. Bancorp, Inc., Nos. 21-cv-869, 21-cv-896, 21-cv-897, 2022 WL 595954, at *6, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34095, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022) (refusing to consider employee handbook attached to the defendant's motion to dismiss because it was not incorporated by reference in the complaint and, “by its own terms, [was] not a contract or other legal document containing obligations upon which the plaintiff's complaint stands or falls” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Plaintiff also submits an email and a letter from the Warren County Sheriff's Office to Plaintiff and two letters from CMC Defendants to Plaintiff's counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 22-3, 22-4, 22-5, 22-6, 24-4). Because the email and letters are neither incorporated in the Complaint by reference nor integral to the Complaint, the Court will not consider them.

Finally, Plaintiff submits printouts of the public New York Entity Information for CBH and Pennsylvania Entity Information for CMC as found on those states' Department of State websites. (Dkt. Nos. 24-2, 24-3). A court may take judicial notice of “public Entity Information” provided by a state's Department of State database. See Fair Hous. Just. Center Inc. v. Lighthouse Living LLC, No. 20-cv-4966, 2021 WL 4267695, at *4, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181505, at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2021) (taking judicial notice of “printout pages from the New York State Department of State Division of Corporations website”). Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of CBH's and CMC's entity information.

III. FACTS^[4]

A. Background

On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff began working as a social worker for WCCF and CMC Defendants. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 16, 30; see Dkt. No. 15-2). WCCF provides detention for arrested individuals as ordered by the courts within Warren County. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 15). Upon Plaintiff's information and belief, WCCF controlled the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment, including oversight and direction because she worked on WCCF premises, and “the County of Warren maintain[ed] control over the operations of WCCF, including its practices related to hiring and firing.” (Id. ¶¶ 19-20). CMC provides healthcare and healthcare administrative services to correctional facilities, including WCCF. (Id. ¶ 22). CMC II is “associated with” CMC and, upon Plaintiff's information and belief, CBH Medical is “an alter ego and/or successor in interest to CMC and CMC II.” (Id. ¶¶ 24, 25). Upon Plaintiff's information and belief, CMC, CMC II, and CBH are “all united in interest and are functioning as subsidiaries, shells, alter egos, and/or successor of one another.” (Id. ¶ 26).

During her time working for Defendants, Plaintiff regularly received positive feedback from her supervisors and colleagues and performed well on her performance review. (Id. ¶ 33). Plaintiff “was frequently asked to do extra shifts, due to her competence.” (Id.).

Plaintiff suffers from “a medical...