Cenzon-DeCarlo v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 626 F.3d 695

Cenzon-DeCarlo, an operating room nurse, was hired by Mount Sinai Hospital in 2004.
She signed a form during hiring indicating unwillingness to participate in abortions under the hospital's conscientious objection policy.
In May 2009, she alleges supervisors coerced her to participate in a late-term abortion, causing emotional harm.
She claims hospital officials pressured her to sign a future willingness form for emergency abortions despite no such exception existing in the policy.
In July 2009, she sued Mount Sinai in the Eastern District of New York alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c) (the Church Amendment).
The district court granted summary judgment for Mount Sinai, holding § 300a-7(c) does not create a private right of action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 300a-7(c) implies a private right of action	Cenzon-DeCarlo argues explicit rights in § 300 should confer private action	Mount Sinai argues no private remedy absent explicit Congressional intent	No private right of action under § 300a-7(c)
If no private right, whether injunctive relief is available	Remedies may flow from implied rights	Without a private right, injunctive relief is unavailable	Injunctive relief not appropriate absent a private right

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. 2001) (private rights of action require explicit congressional intent)
Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1979) (private remedy may be implied if statute clearly confers rights)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. 2002) (FERPA: no implied private right of action)
Health Care Plan, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1992) (analysis of private rights versus remedies)
Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1992) (considerations of private remedies in statutory contexts)
Torraco v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 615 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010) (contemporary view on implied rights and remedies)