Earl v. Good Samaritan Hosp. of Suffern NY ( 2023 )

22-2505-cv
Earl v. Good Samaritan Hosp. of Suffern NY
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER“). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 18th day of December, two thousand twenty-three.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
Circuit Judges.
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS EARL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
NURSE ANONYMOUS,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 22-2505-cv
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL OF SUFFERN
NY, BON SECOURS CHARITY HEALTH
SYSTEM, WESTCHESTER HEALTH CARE
FOUNDATION, INC., DBA WESTCHESTER
HEALTH CARE NETWORK, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
WESTCHESTER MEDICAL HEALTH
FOUNDATION, INC., WESTCHESTER COUNTY
HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, DBA
WMCHEALTH,
Defendants.*
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: STEPHEN BERGSTEIN, Bergstein
& Ullrich, New Paltz, NY
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: BRIAN J. CLARK (Allison B.
Gotfried, on the brief), Venable
LLP, New York, NY
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Nelson S. Román, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Nicholas Earl appeals from a September 7, 2022
judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
2
York (Román, J.), dismissing his claims of discrimination on the basis of
disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
seq. (“ADA”), and Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)
(collectively, the “Acts”), as well as various New York statutory and common
law claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, which
we draw from Earl’s second amended complaint (“SAC”), and the procedural
history, to which we refer only when necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
From October 2018 to April 2020 Earl was a critical care nurse employed
by Defendant-Appellee Good Samaritan Hospital of Suffern NY (the “Hospital”).
Earl filed claims under the ADA and Section 504(a) based on the Hospital’s
failure to accommodate his alleged disabilities, namely, his pre-existing chronic
kidney disease and COVID-related symptoms. 1 The District Court dismissed
the ADA claims because Earl failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. It
dismissed the Section 504(a) claims because Earl failed to allege a disability
1 Earl also brought claims under the ADA and Section 504(a) for discrimination
based on a perceived disability. He alleged that the Hospital discriminated against
him based on his potential to infect others with COVID-19 after his return to work.
The District Court dismissed these claims because the allegations supporting the claims
were speculative and contradictory. Because Earl did not present arguments on appeal
challenging the District Court’s dismissal of these claims, we conclude that he has
abandoned any such challenge. Tafolla v. Heilig, 80 F.4th 111, 115 (2d Cir. 2023).
3
under the Rehabilitation Act. The District Court then declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
“We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, but
may affirm on any basis supported by the record.” Coulter v. Morgan Stanley &
Co., 753 F.3d 361, 366 (2d Cir. 2014). “Because Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act and the ADA impose identical requirements,” Rodriguez v. City of N.Y., 197
F.3d 611, 618 (2d Cir. 1999), we consider the merits of Earl’s claims under these
statutes in tandem.
To state a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA and Section
504, Earl must allege, among other elements, that he is “a person with a disability
under the meaning of the [Acts]” and the “employer covered by the statute had
notice of [the] disability.” McMillan v. City of N.Y., 711 F.3d 120, 125‒26 (2d Cir.
2013) (quotation marks omitted). Earl will be considered disabled under the
Acts if he has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities[.]” Hamilton v. Westchester Cnty., 3 F.4th 86, 92 (2d Cir.
2021) (quotation marks omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A); 45 C.F.R. §
84.3(j)(1).
4
I. Failure to Accommodate Earl’s Chronic Kidney Disease 2
Earl does not adequately allege that his chronic kidney disease constituted
a disability or handicap under the Acts. In deciding whether an impairment
“substantially limits” a major life activity and thus qualifies as a disability under
the ADA, we construe the term “broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the
maximum extent permitted.” Hamilton, 3 F.4th at 93 (quotation marks omitted).
An individual whose kidneys cannot properly function without, for example,
“mechanical assistance” or “regular dialysis,” faces a substantial limitation in a
major life activity. Gilbert v. Frank, 949 F.2d 637, 641 (2d Cir. 1991). But Earl’s
allegations fall short of showing such a substantial limitation.
He acknowledges taking medication since 2017 to treat intermittently
2 We note one error by the District Court: Its dismissal of Earl’s ADA claims for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Exhaustion is a statutory precondition to
bringing suit under the ADA, Soules v. Conn., Dep’t of Emergency Servs. & Pub. Prot., 882
F.3d 52, 57 (2d Cir. 2018), and in the SAC, Earl’s only evidence of exhaustion was his
claim that he “filed a charge within 300 days of his termination and got a right to sue
[sic] within the previous week,” Joint App’x 90. But the burden of pleading and
proving a failure to exhaust under the ADA “lies with defendants and operates as an
affirmative defense.” Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t, 879 F.3d 486, 491 (2d Cir.
2018) (describing exhaustion requirements in the Title VII context); see 42 U.S.C. § 12117(applying Title VII’s exhaustion requirements to ADA claims). While Defendants-
Appellees stated that they had not seen Earl’s right-to-sue letter and could not
determine whether he had exhausted his administrative remedies, they did not contest
that Earl had received a letter or argue that the claims should be dismissed on this basis.
The dismissal of Earl’s ADA claims on this basis was thus error.
5
increased protein levels in his urine associated with his kidney disease and that
contracting COVID “accelerated the progression of his kidney disease.” Joint
App’x 67. These allegations do not show that Earl’s kidney disease substantially
limited his ability to engage in major life activities. And although Earl also
alleges that his disease “substantially limits his ability to eat certain foods and[] .
. . filter nutrients from the bloodstream and eliminate waste,” Joint App’x 90, we
will not credit a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, Hamilton, 3 F.4th
at 91.
II. Failure to Accommodate Earl’s COVID-Related Symptoms
Nor are we persuaded that Earl’s COVID-related complications count as a
qualifying disability. As the District Court concluded, Earl failed adequately to
allege that the COVID-related loss of smell and taste, disrupted sleep, difficulties
with concentration, digestion issues, and problems breathing and exercising,
many of which affect major life activities, “substantially limit[ed]” those activities
while he worked at the Hospital, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). And
even if Earl’s impairments were severe enough to be a disability under the ADA,
Earl still has not stated a claim for failure to accommodate because he has failed
to adequately allege that the Hospital “had notice of [the] disability.” McMillan,
6
711 F.3d at 126 (quotation marks omitted); Coulter, 753 F.3d at 366 (“We . . . may
affirm on any basis supported by the record.”). Even if, as Earl alleges, the
Hospital was aware that Earl had COVID, there is no allegation that it was aware
of his other, COVID-related impairments. See Costabile v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps.
Corp., 951 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2020). Nor does the complaint allege facts from
“which it could plausibly be inferred that [his] disability was obvious” to the
Hospital. Id. at 82 (quotation marks omitted). For example, Earl’s taste
impairment would not have been obvious to the Hospital because upon
returning to the Hospital, Earl reported that he was able to taste the testing
solution during a fit test for a mask.
We therefore conclude that the SAC fails adequately to allege that the
Hospital “knew or should reasonably have known” Earl was disabled due to his
COVID-related symptoms. Costabile, 951 F.3d at 82.
7
CONCLUSION
We have considered Earl’s remaining arguments and conclude that they
are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court
is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Cathrine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
8