K.A. v. City of N.Y.

413 F.Supp.3d 282

K.A. and D.S., Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

18-cv-3858 (ALC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed September 26, 2019

Philip Michael Hines, Held & Hines, LLP, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Martin John Bowe, Jr., Thais R. Ridgeway, NYC Law Department, Janice Louise Birnbaum, New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs K.A. and D.S. bring this putative class action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the City of New York ("City"), New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation ("NYCHHC"), Physician Affiliate Group Of New York, P.C. ("PAGNY"), Anastasia Blackmon, and Dr. "Jane" Vessel (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act arising out of Defendants' medical care policies, customs, and practices at the Rose M. Singer Center ("RMSC") at Riker's Island, New York. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights—to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; to be free from the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and emotional and physical injury; to be free from violations of their bodily integrity and privacy; to competent and timely medical care; and to the freedom of their religion by failing to provide female doctors or chaperones for their medical examinations. Am. Comp. ¶ 77. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background¹

A. Parties

1. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs and putative class members are women confined, past and present, to the New York City Department of Corrections ("NYCDOC") at the RMSC; the women-only jail on Rikers Island. Plaintiffs claim that for nearly a decade, female prisoners at RMSC have been deprived of adequate medical care and the free exercise of religion. Am. Comp. ¶ 14.²

2. Institutional Defendants

Defendant City of New York operates the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") and the NYDOC. Am. Comp. ¶¶ 7-8. PAGNY is a domestic professional corporation. Id. at ¶10. NYCHHC and PAGNY, their site medical directors, physicians, nurses, physician assistants, clinicians, therapists, and other medical staff (collectively, "healthcare professionals"), provided medical, mental health, dental and ancillary services to prisoners at Rikers Island pursuant to a contract with the City of New York and/or DOHMH. Id. at ¶ 11. In carrying out their duties, NYCHHC and PAGNY are required to ensure their policies, practices, procedures, and professional personnel comply with all City, NYCDOC and DOHMH policies, the City's Minimum Standards for Health Care, and local, state and federal law. Id. The City, NYCHHC and PAGNY were responsible for supervising and overseeing the hiring and supervision of RMSC's healthcare professionals. Id. at ¶13. Most healthcare professionals assigned to RMSC are male.

3. Individual Defendants

Defendant Anastasia Blackmon ("Warden Blackmon") was the warden of RMSC. Warden Blackmon was responsible for the following: 1) making policy, methods and procedures, and standards for care and treatment for the RMSC prisoners; 2) supervising staff and inmates, and enforcing NYCDOC, DOHMH and NYCHHC rules and regulations; 3) investigating staff sexual misconduct complaints; 4) investigating and responding to complaints of misconduct against staff, in conjunction with NYCDOC's Inspector General's Office and prosecutors; 5) training staff; 6) reviewing decisions to place male healthcare professionals in a female-only jail; and 7) deciding staff assignments, including whether to remove staff from contact with female prisoners. Id. at ¶ 14.

Defendant Dr. "Jane" Vessel ("Dr. Vessel") was the chief medical officer of RMSC. Am. Comp. ¶ 15. As the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Vessel was responsible for the following: 1) planning, reviewing, supervising, and controlling the medical and health services rendered at RMSC; 2) formulating policies, methods and procedures, and standards for care and treatment; 3) supervising methods of delivery and evaluating patient care; 4) organizing and coordinating the services provided by healthcare professionals at RMSC; 5) overseeing the surveillance and promotion of the healthcare professionals employed at RMSC; participating in administrative decision-making; 6) recommending, approving, and implementing policies and procedures; 7) communicating issues and concerns to RMSC, NYCDOC, NYCHHC, and PAGNY leadership when warranted; 8) establishing and implementing policies, procedures, and guidelines designed to assure a safe clinic experience at RMSC and the provision of adequate, comprehensive services thereat; 9) supervising, evaluating, and training subordinates assure a safe clinic experience at RMSC and the provision of adequate, comprehensive services thereat; and 10) providing direct oversight of staffing decisions including staff management practices to ensure adequate staffing at the RMSC clinic and availability of female chaperones during all shifts. Id.³

B. Allegations

Plaintiffs claim Defendants failed to enact adequate rules and polices to protect the health, security, religious, disability, and privacy rights of female prisoners and to enforce those rules and policies that exist, resulting in violations of these same rights. Am. Comp. ¶ 14. For example, Plaintiffs claim male healthcare professionals perform unchaperoned intimate examinations on female prisoners against official policy and are not disciplined or reprimanded for such misconduct.⁴ In doing so, Defendants regularly force Plaintiffs to either partake in an unchaperoned intimate examination or go back to their cell unexamined; foregoing their medical needs for weeks. Id. at ¶ 35, 37. Essentially, Plaintiffs claim Defendants make them choose between their religion, safety and their health.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants should know that, generally, allowing and assigning male healthcare professionals to perform unchaperoned intimate examinations on female prisoners places them at substantial risk of being sexually victimized; that sexual misconduct by staff is ongoing and recurrent; and that Defendants' policies and practices are "grossly inadequate" to prevent sexual misconduct. Am. Comp. ¶ 25.

Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants should know of the inherent dangers of providing male health care examinations based on the RMSC's history. Am. Comp. ¶ 27. Over the years, many women have complained of being sexual abused by male healthcare professionals at RMSC. Id. As a result, many male healthcare professionals at RMSC have been the subject of internal investigations for engaging in sexual misconduct with female prisoners, numerous instances of sexual misconduct have been substantiated, and numerous substantiated matters have been referred to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Id.

Furthermore, not only did Defendants' disregard its history, they also disregarded Plaintiffs' history of suffering sexual abuse, occurring both in and out of custody. Am. Comp. ¶ 40. Plaintiffs also alleged other forms of staff criminal misconduct; including bribery, beatings, passing contraband, threats, and other forms of coercion. Id. at ¶ 43. Plaintiffs claim Defendants' practices have caused their psychological and emotional distress, including depression, anxiety, nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and fearfulness of male officers and healthcare professionals. Id. Defendants' practices have also caused Plaintiffs to endure pain, suffering, physical injuries, and exacerbated deteriorating medical conditions. Id. at ¶ 41.

Plaintiffs K.A. and D.S., as well as dozens of other female prisoners, filed formal complaints and grievances with Defendants seeking relief from the alleged inappropriate practices. K.A., D.S. and the putative class members also complained to NYCDOC staff. Am. Comp. ¶ 38. However, these complaints and grievances were ignored, and the alleged inappropriate practices continued unabated. Id.

In sum, Plaintiffs claim that despite the obvious nature of these risks and despite the recurrent incidence of sexual abuse and harassment by male healthcare professionals against female prisoners, Defendants have failed to take reasonable, necessary and appropriate steps to prevent and remedy such misconduct.

The Amended Complaint detailed the named Plaintiffs' following experiences:

1. Plaintiff D.S.

Plaintiff D.S. was an RMSC inmate from January 22, 2018 through April 18, 2018. Prior to January 22, 2018, D.S. was the victim of sexual abuse, molestation, and rape. Defendants were on notice of her prior history of sexual abuse based upon information she provided during the intake phase. Am. Comp. ¶ 55.

On January 31, 2018, D.S. was attacked by another inmate and re-injured her right shoulder. Thereafter, D.S. was presented to the RMSC clinic approximately ten to fifteen times for examination and treatment for pain in her shoulder and other evaluations. Am. Comp. ¶ 55. On these occasions, D.S. was assigned to physician assistant, Mr. Roche, and a male doctor, Dr. Jumo. D.S. requested a chaperone and/or examination by a female healthcare professional each time since the examination required her to remove her clothing but was never provided with one. D.S. also alleges that the male healthcare professionals told her they needed to examine her breasts; though there was no medical basis for this. Id. Rather, she claims, it was an excuse for them to fondle her breasts...