Moody v. MidMichigan Med. Ctr-Midland

• Decision Date: 22 July 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-12485
• Parties: KRISTA MOODY, Plaintiff, v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-MIDLAND, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

KRISTA MOODY, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-MIDLAND, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-12485

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

July 22, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND

HONORABLE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is an employment-discrimination action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 1202 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-e17. Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a casual-status Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. As such, she has no guaranteed hours and works when needed. She alleges that Defendant reduced her hours after she worked for a Detroit-area hospital because (1) Defendant regarded her as having COVID-19 and (2) the hospital served predominantly African American patients. She also claims that Defendant retaliated against her for filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Both motions will be granted in part and denied in part. As explained hereafter, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged claims for disability discrimination and retaliation, but she has not plausibly alleged that Defendant discriminated against her for associating with African American patients. Therefore, Plaintiff's disability-discrimination and retaliation claims may proceed, but her associational-discrimination claim will be dismissed.

1

I.

A.

In March 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer declared a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. See MICH. EXEC. ORDER NO. 2020-04 (MAR. 10, 2020). MANY PUBLIC OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE GOVERNOR, FEARED THAT THE PANDEMIC WOULD OVERWHELM THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. AND MANY HEALTHCARE WORKERS TRAVELED AROUND THE STATE TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.2.

On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff's supervisor, Scott Mango, emailed her and other MidMichigan employees to share his “opinion” on assisting other hospitals and “to point out some things that [he] hope[d] [MidMichigan employees] [were] considering.” Id. at PageID.2; ECF No. 6-8 at PageID.69. Among those considerations were malpractice insurance, worker's compensation coverage, and the risk of “bringing [COVID-19] back to [their] family, colleagues, hospital, and community.” ECF No. 6-8 at PageID.69. Mango concluded by stating that although he “[could not] direct [MidMichigan employees] [where to] work,” he wanted them to at least “consider” the issues he had raised. Id.

At some point in March 2020, Plaintiff provided medical services at Providence Hospital in Southfield, Michigan-a predominantly African American community and, at the time, COVID-19 “hotspot.”^[1] ECF No. 1 at PageID.2. Despite his initial refrain from dictating where MidMichigan employees could work, Mango allegedly cancelled several of Plaintiff's shifts and filled them with CRNAs who did not assist “hotspot” hospitals like Providence. Id.

In April 2020, Plaintiff filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Id. at PageID.2. She claimed that Defendant

2

“forced [her] to quarantine [her]self despite the fact that [she] had, and continue[d] to have, no symptoms [of COVID-19].” ECF No. 6-9 at PageID.72. She also claimed that Defendant “regarded her as having a disability.” Id. In September 2021, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter. ECF No. 1 at PageID.2.

B.

In October 2021, Plaintiff brought this action under the ADA and Title VII. Id. at PageID.3. She alleges Defendant reduced her hours after she assisted Providence because (1) it regarded her as having COVID-19 and (2) it discriminated against her for associating with African American patients. Id. at PageID.3-5. Plaintiff also alleges that, after learning of the EEOC charge, Defendant retaliated by cancelling more of her shifts. Id. at PageID.5.

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant acknowledges reducing Plaintiff's hours but explains that it was forced to do so due to (1) an executive order that required healthcare providers to postpone non-essential medical procedures and (2) catastrophic flooding in Midland County in May 2020. ECF No. 6 at PageID.21-22 (citing Mich. Exec. Order No. 2020-17 (Mar. 20, 2020)). Defendant also denies regarding Defendant as having COVID-19 and discriminating against her for associating with African American patients. Id. at PageiD.28. Further, Defendant contends that cOViD-19 does not qualify as an “impairment” under the ADA, and that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an “association” with African American patients. Id. at PageID.28-29. As for Plaintiff's retaliation claim, Defendant argues that it could not have retaliated against her for the EEOc charge, as it did not learn of the charge until “after her work shifts were canceled.” Id. at PageID.6 at PageID.32 (quoting EcF No. 1 at PageID.5).

3

In addition to filing a response brief, Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint “directly addressing the alleged deficiencies” raised by Defendant.^[2] ECF No. 12 at PageID.180. Specifically, Plaintiff's amended complaint would add allegations (1) that Defendant “regarded Plaintiff as suffering from COVID-19,” which Plaintiff describes as “a severe disease that causes both non-transitory and non-minor symptoms”; (2) that as part of her work at Providence Hospital, Plaintiff was “required to associate with, and provide medical treatment to, mainly African-American patients”; and (3) that Defendant retaliated in response to an April 2020 letter that her attorney sent, threatening legal action for the reduced hours. Id. at PageID.180-82.

Having reviewed the parties' briefing, this Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary and will proceed to decide Defendant's motions on the papers. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

II.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint fails to state a claim if it does not contain allegations that support recovery under any cognizable theory. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must construe the complaint in the nonmovant's favor and accept the complaint's factual allegations as true. See Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 439 (6th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff need not provide “detailed factual allegations” to survive dismissal, but the “obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment]

4

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In essence, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (quotations and citation omitted).

Plaintiff's motion for leave is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. As relevant...