McCarthy v. The University of Virginia Health System et al, No. 3:2018cv00121 - Document 18 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/25/19. (jcj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U. S.DISI CG lFr ATRG NOKE,VA FI LCD IN Tc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTERN D ISTRICT O F V IR GIN IA CHARLOTTESVILLE DW ISION JUN 25 2219 JUL BY; DUDLEX CLERK . y. . c KAREN M CCARTHY, l3ldtirltifll CivilActionNo.3:18CV00121 M EMORO UM OPINION By:Hon.Glen E.Com'ad SeztiorUrlited StatesDistdctJudge TH E U NW ER SITY OF V IRG INIA HEALTH SYSTEM ,eta1., Defendants. Karen M ccarthy,procçedingproK ,filed tllisaction undertheAm ericansw ithDisabilities Actof1990(GçADA'')againsttheUniversityofVirginiaHea1thSystem,Dr.NathanFotmtain,Jan Gnrnett,Emile Patterson,and Linda Anderson. The case is presently before the courton the defendants' motion to dism iss. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the defendants'm otion. B ackcround Thefollowiùgfacmalallegations,taken from theplaintiffscomplaint,areacceptedastrue forpurposesofthependingmotiontodismiss. SeeEricksonv.Pardus,551U.S.89,924(2007) (çt(W )henrulingonadefendant'smotionto dismiss,ajudgerimstacceptastruea1lofthefacmal allegationscontainedinthecomplaint.'). M ccarthy isa registered ntlrse who worked in theUniversity ofVirginia Hea1th System McCarthy v. The University of Virginia Health System et al Doc. 18 (GIUVA Hea1th System'')from 2000to2018. Compl.! 10,Dld.No.1. Since2016,M ccarthy has suffered om tim ultiple psychiatlic diagnosesy''including post-trmlm atic stress disorder, anorexia,andnnxiety. Id.!! 10,11. çishehaslostover60polmds...(and)hastotakeValillm, Dockets.Justia.com threetimesaday,to avoidaconstantnearpnniclevelofnnxiety.'' Id.! 10. Additionally,the plaintiffEthasfailed 5 differentdrugtrials,aswellasbehavioralcognitivetherapy.'' Id. The plaintiff alleges thathçr psychiatric conditions were caused by incidents at work involvingviplentpatients. J#-. InM arch of2016,M ccarthytook medicalleave$1inan effortto recoverfrom ....multiple kallmatic events.'' Id.! 12. She soughttreatmentfrom aprivate physiqian,whoprescribedanti-depressantsandamedication forrmxiety. L1I . W hen M ccarthy retllrned to work in M ay of 2016,she requested,and was granted,accomm odations for her impairments. Id. Specifkally,M ccarthy requested thatshe notbe assigned to violentpatients and thatshework only eight-hourshiqs9om 3:00p.m .to 11:00 p.m . Id. W iththeseionditions in place,aswellasseveralnew policiesadclressing staffsafety,ççtheplaintifffeltsafe enough to rettu. ntowork.'' 1(J. M ccarthy àllegesthatherrequested accomm odationswerehonoredtmtilJanuary of2018. J#= Atsomepointthatmonth,M ccarthy wasassigned apatientwho hadpreviously assaulted multiplestaffmembersandproceededtohit,ldck,andspitontheplaintiff. J.Z ! 13. Thatsame m onth,M ccarthy Slsuffered an incidentof sexualmisconductby a demented patient''and was assignedtwootherpatientsSçwithknownMstoriesofpostseizureviolence.'' Id.!! 14,16. On Jtme21,2018,M ccarthy filed a charge ofdiscrim ination with the EqualEmplom ent Oppolïunity Commission C$EEOC''),allegingthatshewasdenied areasonableaccommodation forherdisability in kiolation oftheADA. ChargeofDiscrimination,Dkt.N o.12-1. M ccarthy reported thatshe had notreturned to w ork since February 4,2018 and thatshe had been placed on short-term disability leave. Id. M ccarthy is now on long-term disability leave based on Gçmultiplepsychiatricdiagnoses.'' Compl.!4. Theplaintiffallegesthatsheiscurrentlytmable toworkasanurseinanycapacity. J. 1JZ. ProceduralH istorv M ccarthy fled the instantaction againstthe UVA Hea1th System,Dr.Fountain,Garnett, Patterson,and Anderson on December 28,2018. M ccmthy indicates thatDr.Fotmtain is the directorofthe llnitin which sheworked,thatGnrnettisthe lmitm anager,and thatPatterson and Anderson areshiftm anagers. Theplaintiffclaim sthatthedefendantsfailed toaccom modateher disability,in violation oftheADA. The plaintiffscomplaintalso includesa single reference to theRehabilitationActof1973,29U.S.C.j794. OnM arch 27,2019,thedefendantsmovedtodismissthecomplaintunderRules1209(1) and 12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure. The m otion hasbeen fully briefed and is ripeforreview.l Standards ofR eview Rule12(b)(1)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurepermitsapartytomovefordismissal ofanactionforlaikofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. Theplaintiffbearstheburden ofprovingthat subjectmatterjudsdiction exists. Evansv.B.F.PerldnsCo.,166F.3d642,647 (4th Cir.1999). Dismissalforlack ofsubjectmatterjurisdictionisappropriateRifthematerialjudsdictionalfacts arenotin disputeand themoving party isentitledto prevailasamatteroflam '' Id.(internal citationandquotationmarksomitted). Rule 1241$(6)permitsaparty tomovefordismissalofacomplaintforiailureto statea claim upon which reliifcan begranted. W hen deciding am otion to dism issunderthisnlle,the courtm ustacceptastnze allw ell-pleaded allegationsand draw a11reasonable factualie erencesin theplaintiffsfavor. Erickson,551U.S.at94. %GW hileacomplaintattqcked byaRule1209(6) m otion to dism issdoesnotneed detailed facm alallegations,aplaintiY sobligationtoprovidethe groundsof(herqentitlementto reliefrequiresmorethanlabelsand conclusions,and aformulaic lThecourthasdeterminedthatoralargumentwould notaid thedecisionalprocess. 3 recitation oftheelem entsofacauseofaction willnotdo.'' BellAtl.Cop .v.Twom bly,550U .S. 544,555 (2007) (intem alcitation and quotation marks omitted). To survive dismissal,1ça com plaintmustcontain sufficientfactualm atter,accepted astrue,to <stateaclaim forreliefthatis plausibleonitsface.''' Ashcroftv.Icbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingTwombly,550U.S. at570). D iscussion Thedefendantshavem ovedto dism issthecomplainton multiplegrotmds. They contend, nm ong otherarguments,thatnoneofthe nnm ed defendantsareproperpartiesto thisaction,that theADA claim isbarredby theEleventh Amendm ent,andthatthecom plaintfailsto stateaclaim llndertheRehabilitation Act. Thecourtwilladdresseach ofthese arplm entsin turn. The defend> ts frst argue that neither the UVA Health System nor the individual deikndants are properparties to this action. W ith respectto the UVA Health System,the defendants correctly observe that it is not a ççseparate legal entity''capable of being sued. N zabandora v.Univ.of V a.H ea1th Sys.,N o.3:17-cv-00003,2017 U .S.Dist.LEXIS 9691,at*3 (W .D.Va.Jan.24,2017). Instead,courtshave recogëzed thatthe UVA Health System is a çddivisionofUVA.'' 1d.(citingRector& VisitorsoftheUniv.ofVa.v.Carter,591S.E.2d76(Va. . 2004:. In suits involving the lmiversity or its divisions,courts have held thatthe proper defendantistheRectorand VisitorsoftheUniversity ofVirginia. Johnson v.Urliv.ofVa.M ed. Ctr.,No.3:06-cv-00061,2007U.S.Dist.LEM S 3122,at*12(W .D.Va.Jan.17,2007);seealso Carterv.Rector& VisitorsoftheUzliv.ofVa.,65Va.Cir.326 (Va.Cir.Ct.2004)(notingthat Eçltlheplaintiffamended hermotion forjudgmentto change the defendantto t'I' heRectorand VisitorsoftheUniversitybfVirginia'(GçUVA''),thecoporateentitytmderwhich thellniversity 4 and(themedicalcenterqdobusiness'). Accordingly,thecourtagreeswiththedefendantsthatthe UVA Health System isnotaproperparty andthatitmustbedismissedfrom tlzisaction. The claimsagainstDr.Folmtain,Gnrnett,Patterson,and Anderson are also subjectto dismissal. Underexisting precedent,the individualdefendantscnnnotbe held personally liable forallegedviolationsoftheADA ortheRehabilitationAct. SeeBairdv.Rose,192F.3d 462,472 (4thCir.1999)CçBecauséTitleVIIEoftheCivilRightsActof1964qdoesnotauthodzearemedy againstindividualsforviolationsofitsprovisions,and because Congresshasm adetheremedies available in Title VII applicable to ADA actions,the ADA does notpermit an action against individualdefendants....'');seealsoZ.G.v.PamlicoCtv.Pub.Schs.Bd.ofEduc.,744F.App'x 769,781n.20(4th Cir.2018)(notingthatadding individualcapacity claimstmdertheADA and Section à04 oftheRehabilitation Xctçdwouldbefutilebecauseneitherstatutepermitsan action againstindividualdefendants'). Accordingly,the claims againstthe individualdefendantswill àedismissedwithprejudice. The defendants also argue thateven ifM ccarthy had properly identitied the Rectorand Visitors ofthe Urliversity of Virginia as a defendant,her ADA claim w ould be barred by the Eleventh Am endment. Pursuantto theEléventh Am endm ent,$1anunconsenting Stateisimm tme f' rom suitbroughtin federalcourtby herown citizens.'' Edelm anv.Jordan,415U .S.651,662-.63 (1974). Thisprotectionalsoextendstostateagenciesandinstnlmenialities,RecentsofUniv.of Cal.v.Doe,519U.S.425,429(1997),includingtheUniversityofVirgirlia. SeeTicettv.Rector & VisitorsoftheUniv.ofVa.,97F.Supp.2d752,756(W .D.Va.2000)tsç-l' hisCourthasalready held thattheRectorand VisitorsoftheUniversity,asan instnlmentaltty' ofthestate,isimmune om suii ln federalcourt.''l (citations omitted). Therefore,absent abrogation of sovereign immllnity,M ccmïhycnnnotseekinjtmctiveormonetaryrelieffrom thetmiversity. TheSupreme Courthasheld thatççlslovereign immlmityhasnotbeen abrogated for...ADA TitleIclaims.'' M ccrayv.M d.Dep'tofTransp.,741F.3d480,483(4th Cir.2014)(citingBd.ofTrs.oftheUniv. ofAla.v.Garrett 531U.S.356,374(2001:. Becausetheplaintifrsaccommodationclaim falls tmderTitleIofthe'ADA,2theclaim isjurisdictionallybarredbytheEleventh Amendment. See M ccray,741F.3d at483(notingthatEleventhAmendmentimmllnityisjudsdictionalinnatme). Accordingly,nm ending the complaintto assertan ADA claim againsttheRectorsand Visitorsof theUniversity ofViréihia wouldbefùtile. Theplaintic s complaintalso includesa single reference to theRehabilitation Act. The defendantsconstrued the com plaintto asserta claim for disability discdmination tmderSection 504 oftheRehabilitationAct,whichtheymovedtodisniisstmderRule 12(1 $(6). Inresponseto the defendants'm otioù,the plaintiffemphasizesthatshe is only Gtstting for violations ofADA accommodatidns.'' Pl.'sBr.Opp'n 3;seealso id.(çW gain,thissuitisptlrsuanttoviolationsof ADA accommodations....''). Accordingly,theplaintiffappearsto abandon any claim forrelief undertheRehabilitationAct. In any event,to establish aviolation oftheRehabilitation Actby a state,local,orprivate entity,$ta plaintiffmustdem onstrate thatthe Gprogram oractivity'atissue receivesfederalflmding.'' Paulonev.CityofFrederick,787F.Supp.2d360,371(D.M d.2011) (qu 'oting29U.S.C.j794(a)). Becausethecomplaintisdevoidofany allegationsaddressingthe federal-m nding requirem ent,the complaint fails to state a claim tmder the Rehabilitation Act. Consequently, any rem aining claim tmder the Rehabilitation Act will be dism issed without prejudice. 2TitleIoftheADA prohibitscovered employers9om discriminating S'againstA qualitied individualon the basis of disability.'' See 42 U.S.C.j 12112(a). Such discrimination can occtlr when an employer fails to accornmodatetheknowndisabilityofaqualifiedemployee. See42U.S.C.j12112(b)(5). 6 Cond usion Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwillgrantthedefendants'm otion to dismiss. TheClerk is directed to send cèpiesofthism em orandum opinion and theaccompanying orderto theplaintiff and a11counselofrecoid. DATED:This # dayofJune,2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
