Curtis v. Summit Cnty. Children Servs.

1

MARY K. CURTIS, Plaintiff, v. SUMMIT COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

No. 5:22-CV-02028

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

August 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

AMANDA M. KNAPP United States Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is the County of Summit's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF Doc. 17 (“Motion”).) The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. (ECF Docs. 22 23.) The parties have consented to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. (ECF Doc. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion, dismisses Plaintiff's claims against the County of Summit, and DENIES Plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiff Mary K. Curtis (“Plaintiff” or “Ms Curtis”) filed the present Complaint against defendants Summit County Children Services (“SCCS”) and County of Summit (“the County”) (collectively “Defendants”) on November 9, 2022, seeking to remedy alleged statutory violations and discrimination relating to her request for “a religious accommodation from Defendants' mandate that she wear a mask while working.” (ECF Doc. 1 (“Complaint”), p. 1 ¶ 1.) She asserts that “Defendants statutory violations, discrimination, and retaliation left [her] with the choice of wearing a mask in violation of her sincerely held religious beliefs or losing her job.” (Id. at p. 2, ¶ 4.) The more specific allegations of her Complaint are set forth below.

A. Factual Background

1. Alleged Relationship Between the County, SCCS, and Ms. Curtis

The County has a charter form of government and manages “over ten (10) departments in addition to overseeing various agencies and divisions, including SCCS.” (Complaint, p. 2, ¶ 9.) SCCS is variously identified as a “Summit County agency,” “the County of Summit's local child welfare agency,” and “an agency/division of” the County. (Id. at p. 2-3, ¶¶ 7-8, 13.) More specifically, SCCS is alleged to be a child welfare agency that works with abused and neglected children and their families, and which is “mandated to assess and investigate reports involving the safety and well-being of children.” (Id. at p. 2, ¶¶ 7-8.) The County “maintains oversight authority and job postings on its website for all open positions at SCCS.” (Id. at p. 3, ¶ 14.)

Ms. Curtis worked as a Social Worker Assistant / Social Service Aide in the Community Visit Unit at SCCS, where she supervised community court ordered visitations of abused and neglected children within their homes, in the community, and at the SCCS building. (Complaint, p. 2, ¶ 7.) Ms. Curtis started employment at SCCS in September 2007 and worked there for over fourteen years. (Id. at p. 3, ¶ 10.) SCCS was Ms. Curtis' “direct employer.” (Id. at p. 3, ¶ 13.) Although it is not alleged in the Complaint, Ms. Curtis asserts that the Summit County Fiscal Officer issued her paychecks and is listed on her W-2 as her employer. (ECF Doc. 22, pp. 1-2.)

2. COVID-19 Mask Mandates

Starting in July 2020, in response to a rise of COVID-19 infections, the State of Ohio issued Ohio Department of Health Orders requiring the wearing of facial coverings.

(Complaint, pp. 3-4, ¶¶ 16-18.) On July 27, 2020, SCCS required all SCCS staff to wear a face covering while conducting SCCS business or on SCCS premises. (Id. at p. 4, ¶ 19.) This policy “did not provide for any medical or religious exemption to the mask mandate and provided no instructions as to how employees could request an exemption as required under EEOC guidelines.” (Id.) SCCS then implemented a written policy on August 3, 2020, entitled “COVID-19 Response Plan Family Interaction & Child Transportation Guidelines,” which required “staff to wear face coverings at all times during their participation in family interactions and while transporting children.” (Id. at p. 4, ¶ 20.) Again, “[n]o instructions for requesting religious or medical exemptions were provided.” (Id.)

On August 28, 2020, Summit County health officials issued their own mask mandate, which required the wearing of masks or face coverings in most public places, and also required businesses to enforce the mandate on their employees and customers. (Complaint, p. 4, ¶ 21.) The County's policy permitted exemptions where “the wearing of a mask ‘substantially burdens the practice of a sincerely held religious belief.'” (Id.)

The County temporarily lifted its mask mandate when the State of Ohio rescinded its own mask mandate on June 20, 2021. (Complaint, p. 5, ¶ 22.) However, upon information and belief, Ms. Curtis alleges the County reinstituted its mask mandate “when COVID-19 cases rose beyond a certain level.” (Id.) On August 9, 2021, following a “period of no masking for several months,” staff at SCCS were instructed to return to mask wearing. (Id. at p. 5, ¶ 23.)

“SCCS provided no method or system by which employees could request accommodation to its mask mandate.” (Complaint, p. 6, ¶ 30.) “SCCS did not prohibit employees from applying for a religious exemption to the masking mandate,” but “provided no instruction as to how an employee might request for religious or medical exemption on their own initiative” and “[e]mployees seeking exemption from the mask mandate had to figure it out on their own with no direction or assistance from SCCS.” (Id. at p. 7, ¶¶31-32.)

3. Challenged Employment Actions

On September 14, 2021, Ms. Curtis submitted a notarized “religious accommodation request” to SCCS, requesting relief from its mask mandate because “her sincerely held religious beliefs prevented her from wearing a mask or any form of facial covering.” (Complaint, p. 7, ¶ 33.) After submitting the request, she “was sent home and forced to take Paid Time Off (“PTO”) until her request was resolved.” (Id. at p. 7, ¶ 35.)

The next day, the SCCS Deputy Executive Director for Human Resources & Support Services, Valerie Nash, “called for a hearing to discuss Plaintiff's request for an exemption.” (Complaint, p. 7, ¶ 36.) At the hearing, Ms. Curtis “spoke of her deeply held religious convictions” and stated that “[w]earing a mask evidences a lack of faith and trust in God to protect her.” (Id.) Ms. Curtis “offered to complete periodic COVID-19 testing . . . as a reasonable accommodation.” (Id.) In response, SCCS offered Ms. Curtis “a lower paid position that still required wearing a mask/face shield.” (Id. at p. 8, ¶ 37.) Further, instead of seeking an interactive discussion of her accommodation request, SCCS allegedly said Ms. Curtis “would have to wear a mask or resign” and instructed her to use PTO until the matter was resolved. (Id.)

On September 20, 2021, Ms. Nash told Ms. Curtis via email that her exemption request was denied. (Complaint, p. 8, ¶ 38.) Ms. Nash wrote that Ms. Curtis' beliefs were not sincerely held religious beliefs protected by law, and that SCCS would deny the religious accommodation even if her beliefs were sincere “because of undue hardship due to the ‘threat' of spreading COVID by not wearing a mask.” (Id.) Ms. Nash also ordered Ms. Curtis to return to work the next day wearing a mask, and said SCCS would consider her to have resigned if she did not do so. (Id.) The same day, Ms. Curtis responded via email that “she would not wear a facial covering/mask due to her sincerely held religious beliefs and would not accept a voluntary resignation under any circumstances.” (Id. at p. 8, ¶ 39.) Due to Ms. Curtis' refusal to return to work wearing a mask, Ms. Nash informed Ms. Curtis via email on September 22, 2021 that a meeting would be held with her on October 13, 2021. (Id. at p. 8, ¶ 40.)

SCCS held a disciplinary meeting with Ms. Curtis on October 13, 2021. (Complaint, p. 8, ¶ 41.) At that meeting, Ms. Nash inquired about Ms. Curtis' professional counseling licensure and referenced counseling ethics “even though Plaintiff never worked in that capacity for SCCS.” (Id. at p. 8, ¶ 41.) Ms. Nash's inquiry and discussion of counseling ethics caused Ms. Curtis to be concerned that Ms. Nash “was threatening her professional counseling license due to her religious beliefs.” (Id.) Ms. Nash also allegedly instructed Ms. Curtis to read and explain how each COVID-19 protocol, including those unrelated to the mask mandate, “went against her religious beliefs.” (Id. at pp. 8-9, ¶ 41.) As a result, Ms. Curtis felt “threatened and demeaned for her faith.” (Id. at p. 9, ¶ 41.)

On October 22, 2021, SCCS met with Ms. Curtis “to communicate the disposition of the charges against her.” (Complaint, p. 9, ¶ 42.) Ms. Curtis was terminated on November 1, 2021. (Id. at p. 9, ¶ 43.) Ms. Curtis timely filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id. at p. 9, ¶ 44.) The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on August 11, 2022. (Id. at p. 9, ¶ 45.)

B. Procedural History

Ms. Curtis filed the present Complaint on November 9, 2022, asserting the following claims for relief against both Defendants: (1) Religious Discrimination-Failure to Accommodate in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; (2) Religious Discrimination-Retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; and (3) violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) (42 U.S.C. §2000BB-1). (Complaint, pp. 9-12, ¶¶ 46-68.)

In support of the Title VII failure to accommodate claim in Count I, Ms. Curtis alleges she informed SCCS that her sincere religious beliefs precluded her from wearing a mask or facial covering and requested accommodation from the masking mandate, but that “SCCS denied [her] request for religious accommodation on masking” and “did not engage in an interactive process . . . regarding her request for religious accommodation.” (Id. at p. 9, ¶¶ 47-50.) She also...