Opinion
01 Civ. 10993(HB)
June 11, 2002
OPINION ORDER
Plaintiff Daniel Kressler ("Kressler"), a mental health worker, sued his employer Four Winds Hospital ("Four Winds") for injunctive relief and compensatory damages under Title I ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12111-12117, New York Executive Law § 296(a) ("New York Human Rights Law") and Article 27-F of the New York State Public Health Law, N.Y.Pub.Health Law § 2780 et seq. The defendant Four Winds moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
From September 2000 to August 2001, Kressler was employed as a mental health care worker by Four Winds, a private psychiatric hospital that provides inpatient and outpatient mental health services to children, adolescents and adults. On August 13, 2001, Kressler and nurse Janet Meyer ("Meyer") were restraining a ten-year-old girl so that Meyer could inject her with medication. Apparently due to the commotion, Meyer first pricked Kressler — piercing his skin — with the same needle that she then used to inject the patient. Kressler reported the incident to Joanne Richebach ("Richebach"), Four Winds' chief operating officer, who informed Kressler that he would be required to undergo a blood test for the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus ("HIV") and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ("AIDS"). During several subsequent conversations with Richebach, Kressler was informed of the purpose for the blood test, i.e., to permit the hospital to assess the level of risk to the patient and if possible head off any necessity for a barrage of prophylactic medication. Kressler, however, refused to take the blood test. More than once, Richebach told him how important this was to the 10-year old patient and how it was an obligation of each employee to insure the health of the patients at Four Winds. He was told that his failure to be tested either at Four Winds or at his private physician's office could result in his dismissal. Kressler continued to refuse, and he was fired.
Kressler filed charges of employment discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on August 15, 2001. After receiving a Right to Sue letter, he filed the instant action on December 6, 2001.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard on motion to dismiss
A claim will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) only when "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Tarshis v. Riese Organization 211 F.3d 30,35 (2d Cir. 2000). Additionally, the court is required to accept as true all of the facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Madonna v. United States, 878 F.2d 62,65 (2d. Cir. 1989).
B. ADA claim
Kressler asserts that Four Winds violated Section 12112(d)(4)(A) of the ADA when it fired him for refusing to take an AIDS test.
In general, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) his employer is subject to the ADA; (2) he suffers from a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (3) he could perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) he was fired because of his disability. EyZnv. Grae Rybicki. P.C., 135 F.3d 867,869 (2d Cir. 1998).
Kressler fails on the second prong of the prima facie test. The ADA defines disability as "(a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (b) a record of such an impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2); Schaefer v. State Ins. Fund 207 F.3d 139,141 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2000). While Kressler argues that he was "regarded as having" a disability, nowhere in his complaint, as the defendant points out, does he make such an allegation. Nor can such a claim be construed from the facts alleged. Kressler's conclusory argument cannot suffice to fill the gap. See Francis v. City of Meriden. 129 F.3d 281,284 (2d Cir. 1997). In Francis, the Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an ADA claim because the plaintiff firefighter, while claiming that his employer disciplined him for failing to meet a general weight standard, failed to allege that his employer regarded him as suffering from any physiological weight-related disorder. Id. Similarly here, Kressler merely claims that he was terminated because he failed to comply with a blood test. There is no showing that he suffers from a disability and no allegation that Four Winds regarded him as suffering from HIV or AIDS. Kressler has failed to and could not from the record before me, show either a disability or that his employer "regarded" him as having a disability.
Kressler additionally argues that his claim is saved under Section 12112(d)(4)(A) of the ADA.
Section 12112(d)(4)(A) provides:
A covered entity shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(4)(A) (emphasis added).
While Kressler argues that Four Winds' request for an AIDS test necessarily gives rise to a cause of action, the language of Section 12112(d)(4)(A) plainly evinces otherwise. The ADA prevents only those medical inquiries that do not serve a legitimate business purpose. See Lent v. Goldman Sachs Company 1998 WL 915906, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 1998) (citing interpretations of the statute by the EEOC). It is highly doubtful that the ADA was intended to preclude a medical facility such as Four Winds from requiring an AIDS test of one of its workers in order to protect the health of a patient. Such ajustification is hardly one that rings of discrimination, rather it clearly falls within the bounds of Four Winds' business necessity. See, e.g., EEOC v. Prevo's Family Market, 135 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding that grocery store's discharge of an alleged HI V-positive employee for refusing a medical examination did not violate the ADA because the examination was intended to protect the health of its other employees and the general public from HIV infection); Leckelt v. Hospital District No. 1 Board of Commissioners, 909 F.2d 820 (5Z' Cir. 1990) (finding that hospital's requiring AIDS test for nurse whose duties included potential opportunities for HIV transmission did not violate the related Rehabilitation Act).
C. State law claims
After dismissing the plaintiff's only basis for federal jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); See also, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,726 (1966) ("Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well."). Therefore, the pendent state law claims are dismissed as well.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Four Winds' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the state law claims are dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. The Clerk of the court is directed to close any pending motions, close this case and remove it from my docket.