Speaks v. Health Sys. Mgmt.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 5:22-CV-00077-KDB-DCK |
| Decision Date | 17 August 2022 |
| Parties | STEPHANIE SPEAKS, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Health Systems Management, Inc.'s (“Heath Systems” or the “Company”) Motion to Dismiss the employment discrimination claims of its former employee Stephanie Speaks. Ms. Speaks claims that she was unlawfully terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq (“ADA”), when she refused to comply with the Company's COVID-19 vaccination policy. (Doc. No. 8). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT the motion.
At the outset, however, it is important to note the narrowness of the issue before the Court. Since early 2020, the world has battled COVID-19, the disease caused by the infectious SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. According to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine, there have been over 580 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide, with more than 92 million cases in the United States. The death toll from the disease is equally staggering - COVID-19 has killed over 6 million people worldwide, including over a million people in the United States. See Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Dashboard, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html, accessed August 10, 2022.
The disease continues to be a public health challenge, albeit with fewer serious illnesses and deaths than when it first spread.
Among the reasons for the amelioration of the worst effects of this global pandemic is the creation and broad administration of more than 12 billion doses of vaccines that, while certainly not a panacea nor a complete shield against the disease “work well to help prevent severe coronavirus disease hospitalization or death.” Id.; Lisa Maragakis, M.D. and Gabor Kelen, M.D., Full FDA Approval of a COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Should Know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know. The advent of these life-saving vaccines has led some schools, government agencies and private businesses to require that their employees, students and customers become vaccinated. These “vaccine mandates” raise a host of important and complex legal issues that force courts to balance the competing constitutional, statutory and common law rights of public and private employers, employees, students, parents and others, often with each group containing those who both support and oppose the vaccination requirement.
The full scope of these challenging issues is not before the Court. Instead, the Court need only address the narrow issue of whether Ms. Speaks, who is appearing pro se, may maintain her ADA claims against the Company. As explained below, because the Court finds that she has not sufficiently alleged that she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA simply because her employer implemented a COVID-19 policy requiring vaccination and she chose not to become vaccinated or seek an exemption, the Court concludes her claims must be dismissed.
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” tests whether the complaint is legally and factually sufficient. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012). A complaint must only contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. In evaluating whether a claim is sufficiently stated, “[the] court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” but does not consider “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, ... bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[,] ... unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009).
Further, a court is not bound to “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit.” Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Miller v. Pacific Shore Funding, 224 F.Supp.2d 977, 984 n.1 (D. Md. 2002) (“When the bare allegations of the complaint conflict with any exhibits or documents, whether attached or adopted by reference, the exhibits or documents prevail”) (citing Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991)); Sec'y of State for Defense v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) determines only whether a claim is stated; “it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).
Finally, in applying these Rule 12 standards the Court must also consider that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, which requires the Court to liberally construe the pleadings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, and if the Court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980). However, a district court may not rewrite a pro se complaint to include claims that were never presented, Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999), or “conjure up questions never squarely presented” to the court. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Still, the requirement of liberal construction of pro se pleadings does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Health Systems is in the business of providing management and administrative services for dialysis facilities in Georgia and North Carolina. Speaks is a resident of Statesville, North Carolina and a former employee of Health Systems Management North Carolina, one of the Company's subsidiaries. She worked with patients as a financial counselor in a Statesville outpatient dialysis facility, which operated under what was at the time the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.
In July 2021, Health Systems instituted a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. In enacting the policy, the Company told its employees that it did so because (1) it was required by the Wake Forest Baptist Health System (Doc. No. 1 at pp. 44-45; Ex. A-14), and (2) “[a]s healthcare workers, we know that it is our sacred duty to keep those in our care safe and protected.” (Doc. No. 1 at p. 27; Ex. A-1.) The policy, which contained an opportunity for employees to seek a medical or religious exemption, required vaccination by October 31, 2021. Id. On July 29, 2021, Ms. Speaks signed an acknowledgment that she had received and understood the vaccination policy, (Doc. 1 p. 31; Ex. A-4), although she claims that she soon thereafter expressed her disagreement with the vaccination requirement.
Prior to the vaccination deadline date, the Company held educational seminars, informed its employees that the Pfizer vaccine had been fully approved by the FDA, and offered a financial incentive of $500.00 to vaccinated employees. (Doc. No. 1; Speaks Aff. ¶¶ 16; 19-21.) Plaintiff admits that she did not seek a medical or religious exemption but rather asserted a “right of informed consent and the right to refuse to take part in clinical trials,” even though by the vaccination deadline the Pfizer vaccine had moved beyond emergency use approval. (Compl. ¶ 46.) On October 29, 2021, the Company sent Speaks a letter reminding her of the vaccination policy and exemption request/approval deadline of October 31, 2021, and told her that if she remained unvaccinated that she would be placed on a two-week unpaid leave of absence starting on Monday, November 1, 2021. (Doc. No. 1, Speaks Aff. ¶ 37.) She was also informed that her employment would be terminated on November 14, 2021, if she remained unvaccinated. Id. Speaks chose to remain unvaccinated and not seek an exemption and she was terminated on or about November 14, 2021.
Before filing this lawsuit, Speaks filed charges of disability discrimination and retaliation with the Civil Rights Division of the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings (“NCOAH”) in September 2021, (Doc. 1 pp. 41-42; Ex. A-12), and with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in February 2022. (Doc. 1 pp 63-66; Ex. A-28.) On March 10, 2022, the EEOC provided Speaks a “Dismissal and Notice of Right to Sue” letter, (Compl. ¶ 6), which was issued at her request prior to the EEOC conducting an investigation into her charges.[1] On June 10, 2022, Speaks filed this action, alleging that the Company violated the ADA by its alleged discrimination and retaliation. Setting aside her most outrageous allegations and invective, including that neither the COVID-19 global pandemic nor a legal vaccine exists,[2] Speaks in effect contends that Health Systems violated the ADA simply by enforcing its COVID-19 policy requiring its employees to be vaccinated. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 67, 70; Doc. No. 11 at 3). As discussed below, after fully considering the parties' arguments,[3]...
To continue reading
Request your trial