Whitebread v. Luzerne Cnty.
| Decision Date | 20 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:22-cv-00133 |
| Parties | KAYLA WHITEBREAD, Plaintiff, v. LUZERNE COUNTY, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) filed by the defendant, Luzerne County and Luzerne County Correctional Facility (the “County defendants”). The plaintiff, Kayla Whitebread, filed this action against the County on January 25, 2022. In her complaint, the plaintiff brings federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. 1).
For the reasons set forth herein, the County defendants' motion to dismiss regarding the ADA and RA claims will be granted with leave to amend.
The plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) filed on January 25, 2022 in this court, alleges that she became employed as a correctional officer with the defendants on October 26, 2020 and she was subject to a 120-day probationary period which would have ended on February 23, 2021. Whitebread alleges that on February 7, 2021, she called her employer to report that she was unable to work because she was experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, that her stepson had been exposed to COVID-19, and that she had been exposed to her stepson.
On February 8, 2021, Whitebread again called her employer stating she was unable to work because she had been tested for COVID-19, and she was awaiting the results of the test. The next day, at her employer's request, her physician faxed a note to Whitebread's employer stating that she should remain off work until she received the results of the COVID-19 test results. That same day, her employer called and asked her to work an overtime shift. She explained that she had been exposed to COVID-19, and she had not received her test results. Later that day, on February 9, 2021, she received a voicemail from a representative of her employer that her employment was terminated because she did not successfully complete her probationary period.
Whitebread filed a dual charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) asserting her claims under the ADA and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) on August 7, 2021. The EEOC issued a dismissal and notice of rights letter to Whitebread on November 8, 2021. The complaint in this court was thereafter timely filed. The County defendants filed their motion to dismiss on March 28, 2022. (Doc. 9). In their motion, the County defendants argue that Whitebread's claims fail because she has not plausibly pled that she is a qualified individual with a disability or that she was associated with an individual with a disability under the ADA or the RA. Also, they contend that the defendant, Luzerne County Correctional Facility, is not a separate and distinct entity from the defendant, Luzerne County. The parties have briefed the motion, and it is ripe for disposition. (Doc. 10; Doc. 13; Doc. 14).
Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief is granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff's claims lack facial plausibility.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen, Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). In deciding the motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellab, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). Although the Court must accept the fact allegations in the complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept “unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Baraka v. McGreevy, 481 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007). Nor is it required to credit factual allegations contradicted by indisputably authentic documents on which the complaint relies or matters of public record of which we may take judicial notice. In re Washington Mut. Inc., 741 Fed. App'x 88, 91 n.3 (3d Cir. 2018); Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia, 246 F.Supp.3d 1058, 1075 (E.D. Pa. 2017); Banks v. Cty. of Allegheny, 568 F.Supp.2d 579, 588-89 (W.D. Pa. 2008).
The complaint is comprised of four Counts. In Counts One and Two, Whitebread asserts claims under the ADA for discrimination and associational discrimination. In Counts Three and Four, she asserts parallel claims based upon § 504 of the RA for discrimination and associational discrimination.
The defendants argue that the ADA and the RA claims in Counts One through Four should be dismissed because the plaintiff has not plausibly pled that she is a qualified individual with a disability or that she was associated with an individual with a disability under the ADA or the RA.
Title II of the ADA states that: “no qualified individual with a disability shall by reason of such disability be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Section 504 of the RA provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
Claims under the ADA and the RA are generally subject to the same substantive standard. S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248, 260 (3d Cir. 2013); Hewlette-Bullard ex rel. J.H-B. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 522 F.Supp.3d 78, 103 (M.D. Pa. 2021). To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA or RA, a plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) that [s]he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that [s]he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) that [s]he was subjected to an adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination.” Showers v. Endoscopy Ctr. of Cent. Pa., LLC, 58 F.Supp.3d 446, 460 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (citing Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177, 185 (3d Cir. 2010)); see also; Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176, 189 (3d Cir. 2009). Although claims under the RA and the ADA are otherwise generally the same, the causation elements of the RA and the ADA differ in that the “RA allows a plaintiff to recover if he or she were deprived of an opportunity to participate in a program solely on the basis of disability, while the ADA covers discrimination on the basis of disability, even if there is another cause as well.” CG v. Pa. Dep't. of Educ., 734 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). Both statutes require plaintiffs to prove “that they were treated differently based on the protected characteristic, namely the existence of their disability.” Id. at 236.
The ADA defines a “disability” as “[1] a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; [2] a record of such an impairment; or [3] being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). A plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA only if she had a disability at the time of the adverse employment decision. Rahsman v. DewberryGoodkind, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-1931, 2007 WL 188571, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2007).
To obtain compensatory monetary damages under § 504 of the RA and the ADA, however, the Third Circuit requires a plaintiff to prove intentional discrimination. S.H. 729 F.3d at 261. The Third Circuit has also held that “a showing of deliberate indifference may satisfy a claim for compensatory damages under § 504 of the RA and . . . the ADA. S.H. 729 F.3d at 263.
To satisfy the deliberate indifference standard, a plaintiff must present evidence that shows both: (1) knowledge that a federally protected right is substantially likely to be violated . . ., and (2) failure to act despite that knowledge. Deliberate indifference does not require a showing of personal ill will or animosity toward the disabled person. It does, however, require a deliberate choice, rather than negligence or bureaucratic inaction.
D.E. v. Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist., 765 F.3d 260, 269 (3d Cir. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The defendants contend that the plaintiff failed to allege that she was a qualified individual with a disability and/or that she was associated with an individual with a disability because possible exposure to COVID-19 is not an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. (Doc. 10, at 8). In support of this argument, the defendants rely upon Parker v. Cenlar FSB, Civil Action No 20-02175, 2021 WL 22828, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2021) ( possible exposure to COVID-19 is not a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A)). Whitebread contends that Parker is inapposite because she reported much more than “possible exposure” to COVID-19 to the defendants. (Doc. 13, at 4). Whitebread directs u...
To continue reading
Request your trial