3:18-cv-00121
W.D. Va.Jun 25, 2019Background
- Karen McCarthy, a registered nurse employed by the University of Virginia Health System from 2000–2018, alleges multiple psychiatric disabilities (PTSD, anorexia, anxiety) caused by workplace incidents involving violent patients.
- She took medical leave in March 2016, returned in May 2016 after obtaining accommodations (no assignment to violent patients; 8-hour evening shifts) and safety-policy changes.
- McCarthy alleges the accommodations were honored until January 2018, when she was reassigned to violent or sexually aggressive patients and subsequently stopped working; she is now on long-term disability and alleges she cannot work as a nurse.
- She filed an EEOC charge on June 21, 2018 alleging denial of reasonable accommodation under the ADA, then sued in federal court naming UVA Health System and four individual managers, and referenced the Rehabilitation Act once.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) that UVA Health System is not a suable entity, individuals cannot be sued under the ADA, the ADA Title I claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the Rehabilitation Act claim lacks federal-funding allegations.
- The court dismissed: UVA Health System as not a separate legal entity; individual defendants with prejudice because ADA/Rehab Act do not permit individual-capacity suits; ADA Title I claim against the University is barred by sovereign immunity; Rehabilitation Act claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead federal funding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UVA Health System is a proper defendant | McCarthy sued the named employer entity | UVA Health System is not a separate legal entity; proper defendant would be Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va. | UVA Health System dismissed as not a suable entity |
| Whether individual managers can be sued under the ADA/Rehab Act | McCarthy sued directors/managers for failure to accommodate | ADA and Rehab Act do not authorize suits against individuals | Claims against individual defendants dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Title I ADA claim against the state/university is barred by Eleventh Amendment | McCarthy seeks relief for failure to accommodate under Title I | State sovereign immunity bars Title I ADA suits against states/instrumentalities | Title I ADA claim against the university is jurisdictionally barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Whether plaintiff stated a Rehabilitation Act claim | McCarthy referenced Rehabilitation Act but emphasized ADA theory | Defendants: no allegations that the program received federal funding (required for §504) | Rehabilitation Act claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead federal funding |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (standards for pleading; accept well-pleaded factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and plausibility review)
- Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462 (4th Cir.) (ADA does not authorize individual-capacity suits)
- McCray v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., 741 F.3d 480 (4th Cir.) (sovereign immunity not abrogated for ADA Title I claims)
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (Eleventh Amendment and Congress’s abrogation limits under ADA)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (state sovereign immunity principles)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (state agencies/instrumentalities covered by sovereign immunity)