CARMAN v. HORIZON NEW JERSEY HEALTH
2:15-cv-07932
D.N.J.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Susan Carman is a Medicaid recipient who has received Personal Care Assistance (PCA) services since 1997; Derek Dillard is her PCA caregiver.
- Carman filed an ADA claim against New Jersey agencies in Sept. 2015; Plaintiffs allege Horizon (a contractor with those agencies) reduced Carman’s approved PCA hours beginning Jan. 2016 in retaliation.
- Plaintiffs filed an in forma pauperis complaint and an Amended Complaint asserting five counts: general discrimination (ADA/Title VII), ADA benefits discrimination, ADA retaliation, ADA effective-communication violation, and employment discrimination against Dillard (Title VII and other statutes).
- Horizon moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court considered the Amended Complaint’s allegations as pleaded and found multiple pleading deficiencies.
- The court dismissed all counts without prejudice, giving Plaintiffs 30 days to amend, and instructed them to clarify standing, factual allegations (e.g., Horizon’s status as a public entity, causation, employment relationship), and exhaustion of administrative remedies where required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Horizon violated ADA/Title VII by discriminating against Carman and/or Dillard (general discrimination) | Carman was denied prior PCA hours because of disability; Dillard was discriminated against due to race/age | Plaintiffs failed to plead Horizon is a public entity, failed to plead Horizon employed Dillard, and failed to exhaust Title VII remedies | Dismissed: plaintiffs did not plausibly allege ADA public-entity status, employment relationship, or EEOC exhaustion for Title VII |
| Whether Horizon violated ADA regulations by denying equal PCA benefits (§ 35.130) | Horizon refused to authorize full PCA benefits, disadvantaging Carman | Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege Horizon is a public entity or that Carman was treated less favorably than comparators | Dismissed: insufficient facts to state a plausible § 35.130 claim |
| Whether Horizon retaliated against Carman for filing ADA claim against state agencies (§ 35.134) | Denial/reduction of PCA hours was intimidation/retaliation tied to earlier ADA filing | Plaintiffs offered only temporal proximity and no facts showing Horizon’s knowledge or a pattern of antagonism | Dismissed: no plausible causal link or knowledge alleged |
| Whether Horizon violated ADA communication requirements (§ 35.160) | Denying PCA hours impaired effective communication and access to auxiliary aids/services | Plaintiffs did not allege Horizon is a public entity and failed to identify the communication deficiency | Dismissed: allegations too vague and public-entity status not pleaded |
| Whether Dillard suffered employment discrimination (Title VII, § 1981, ADEA, Rehabilitation Act, CSRA) | Dillard was not hired/paid full benefits because of race and age | Plaintiffs failed to plead Horizon employed Dillard, failed to exhaust Title VII/administrative prerequisites, and failed to plead statutory elements for other statutes | Dismissed: failure to plead employment relationship, exhaustion, and statutory elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (district court must separate factual allegations from legal conclusions)
- Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) (plausibility and discovery standard)
- Burtch v. Milberg Factors, 662 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2011) (legal conclusions not entitled to presumption of truth)
- Matthews v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 613 F. App’x 163 (3d Cir. 2015) (private contractor is not a public entity merely because it contracts with government)
- Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010) (definition of instrumentality of a state)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, 446 U.S. 318 (1980) (Title VII protects employees from employer discrimination)
- Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325 (3d Cir. 1995) (ADA covers discriminatory effects of neglect or indifference)
- Cottrell v. Good Wheels, 458 F. App’x 98 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements of ADA retaliation claim)
- Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3d Cir. 1997) (retaliation proof factors: temporal proximity, antagonism, knowledge)
- Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) (§ 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in contracts)
- Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987) (§ 1981 requires intentional discrimination to state claim)
- Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) (CSRA provides review for federal employees)