State ex rel. O'Connor v. Ascension Healthcare, 21-CV-488-TCK-SH
| Decision Date | 23 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-488-TCK-SH |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., JOHN M. O'CONNOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. ASCENSION HEALTHCARE, ASCENSION MEDICAL GROUP, ASCENSION MEDICAL GROUP ST. JOHN LLC, Defendants. |
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., JOHN M. O'CONNOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff,
v.
ASCENSION HEALTHCARE, ASCENSION MEDICAL GROUP, ASCENSION MEDICAL GROUP ST. JOHN LLC, Defendants.
No. 21-CV-488-TCK-SH
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
November 23, 2021
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 12). Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 28) on November 19, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on November 22, 2021 (Doc. 29).[1] Therefore, pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. 18), the Motion has been fully briefed. Having reviewed the filings and accompanying exhibits submitted by both parties, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
At its core, this case is about conditions of employment, and whether a private employer can modify its employment conditions to require employees to be vaccinated in response to an unprecedented global pandemic. Within that framework, the issue is whether the law requires preliminary enjoinment of a mandatory vaccination policy. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Due to “the fast-moving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and its ongoing threat to the health and safety of individuals receiving health care services in Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers, ” the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) recently issued an interim final rule (“IFR”) requiring healthcare employers to require COVID-19 vaccinations for their employees. 86 Fed. Reg. at 61, 568; see also 42 C.F.R. § 482.42(g). The IFR only allows for exceptions to the vaccination requirement when required by Federal law. See 42 C.F.R. § 482.42(g)(3)(vi). CMS stated, that the “IFR preempts the applicability of any State or local law providing for exemptions to the extent such law provides broader exemptions than provided for by Federal law and are inconsistent with this IFR.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 61, 572; see also 86 Fed. Reg. at 61, 568 (“We intend, consistent with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, that this nationwide regulation preempts inconsistent State and local laws as applied to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers.”).
Plaintiff filed a Petition for Enforcement of the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act and Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), in Tulsa County, Case No. CJ-2021-3251, on November 12, 2021, seeking enforcement of State law. Plaintiff sought an order “restraining and enjoining Ascension from taking any [] adverse action against those who have sought a religious exemption until the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (“OCRE”) completes its pending investigation into complaints of discrimination” by Defendants. (Doc. 2-3 p.1). The Plaintiff further stated he had “reasonable cause to believe Ascension has engaged and is engaging in unlawful discriminatory practices in the implementation and administration of its mandatory vaccinate or terminate policy.” (Doc. 2-3 p. 2).
Dr. Duininck filed a charge of discrimination with the OCRE against Defendants alleging the following:
In July or August of 2021, he was notified by Defendants that he would be required to be vaccinated for COVID-19 to continue his employment with Defendants. (Doc. 2-3, Ex. 1).
Plaintiff claims a sincerely held religious belief that prevents him from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Id. ¶ 3.
On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff notified Defendants of his religious beliefs and requested a religious accommodation exempting him from that mandatory vaccine policy. Id. ¶ 4.
As part of Plaintiff's request for an accommodation, Defendants required him to acknowledge that if he was not fully vaccinated or granted an accommodation by November 12, 2021, his employment would be immediately suspended, and that further non-compliance would be deemed voluntary resignation. Id. ¶ 5.
On October 6, 2021, Defendants summarily denied his request for a religious accommodation. Id. ¶ 6.
On October 9, 2021, Defendants acknowledged the sincerity of Plaintiff's beliefs and stated, “Due to the nature of your role and working onsite as well as with patients, it would pose an undue hardship on the organization to grant your religious exemption request because the vaccine is the most effective means to mitigate the risk to patient and workplace safety.” Id. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff appealed Defendants' denial of his religious accommodation on October 11, 2021 and provided additional information in support of his request on October 13, 2021. Id. ¶ 8.
Defendants again denied Plaintiff's request on November 5, 2021 stating that the denial was not a challenge to his personal beliefs and the decision was driven by his strong need to promote and protect the health and safety of their workforce and patients. Id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants had determined in advance, before they notified him and other employees of the mandatory vaccination policy, that they would summarily deny all requests for religious accommodations based on the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the development of the vaccine. Id. ¶ 10.
Plaintiff claims Defendants failed to identify any undue hardship to justify its denial of his request. In fact, Plaintiff states he works close to another employee who was granted a medical exemption and remains unvaccinated, but Defendants have not given any additional instructions regarding reasonable accommodations beyond those precautions already in place. Id. ¶ 11.
Plaintiff claims Defendants have approved requests for religious accommodation for some non-employees working in their facilities based on sincerely held religious beliefs identical to his own beliefs. But Defendants have not provided any justifications for denying his request. Id. ¶ 12.
Defendants failed to engage in the interactive process to determine whether any other reasonable accommodations were available that would adequately protect Defendants' patients and staff while allowing Plaintiff to continue adhering to his religious beliefs. Id. ¶ 13.
Plaintiff claims Defendants believe he has or may acquire a communicable disease and are treating him as if he already has the disease, claiming Defendants are treating him as if he was disabled. Id. ¶¶ 14-15.
Plaintiff believes Defendants failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and are discriminating against him based on his religion and Ascension's perception that he is or will get COVID-19 making him disabled in violation of Title VII, the ADA, and the Oklahoma AntiDiscrimination Act. Id. ¶ 16.
Based on these same allegations, the state court granted a TRO on November 12, 2021, stating that it would grant a temporary and emergency order pending a full hearing set for
December 1, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. (Ex. 2). That Order provides that “Ascension Healthcare et al., is temporarily restrained and enjoined from suspending or terminating the employment of, or taking any other adverse action against, any of defendants' Oklahoma employees and contractors who have requested but have been denied a religious exemption from Ascension's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Defendants shall rescind all such suspensions, terminations, or other adverse actions that have occurred prior to the entry of this order and allow Oklahoma employees an additional thirty (30) days from the entry of this order to submit requests for religious accommodations.” The TRO further provides that “The Court enters this Temporary Restraining Order on a temporary and emergency basis and sets this matter for further hearing on the [1st] day of [December], 2021 to determine whether a temporary injunction should be granted during the pendency of the Attorney General's investigation of the complaints of discrimination that have been filed against defendants.”
After the TRO was granted, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in this Case. (Doc. 2). After the Removal was filed, the State of Oklahoma filed an Amended Complaint removing all federal causes of action. (Doc. 7).
II. ANALYSIS
Generally, any civil action brought in a state court where the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction may be removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the district and division embracing the place where the original suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial