Civil rights – Standing – Causation

Listen to this article

Where the plaintiff, a Boston firefighter whose request for a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination was denied, has filed a complaint against the executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, the complaint must be dismissed because the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged causation.

“Plaintiff Michael Browder (‘Plaintiff’ or ‘Browder’) has sued Defendant Dr. Bisola Ojikutu (‘Defendant Ojikutu’), in her individual and official capacities, alleging violations of substantive and procedural due process, free exercise under the First Amendment, and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. … Defendant Ojikutu moves to dismiss all claims against her, arguing that Browder’s claims are barred by qualified immunity, that Browder has not alleged sufficient facts to plausibly entitle him to any relief, and that Browder has not alleged any conduct of hers that caused him harm. … Plaintiff opposes Defendant Ojikutu’s Motion, arguing that Defendant Ojikutu acted as a cabinet-level agent of the City of Boston, causing Plaintiff harm. …

“Defendant Ojikutu became Executive Director of the Boston Public Health Commission (‘BPHC’) on September 1, 2021. … Plaintiff alleges that, ‘on information and belief’ Defendant Ojikutu had the authority to grant or deny religious accommodation requests to the Vaccine or Test Policy and that her decisions were based on the advice of the City of Boston’s Director of Labor Relations, Defendant Pust, who interviewed employees seeking these accommodations. … Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Ojikutu and Defendant City of Boston denied religious accommodation requests if they were based on ‘conspiracy beliefs’ or ‘medical mistrust’ as defined by Defendant Ojikutu in her research publications. …

“Plaintiff brought this suit on June 19, 2024. Plaintiff brings five claims against Defendant Ojikutu: violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Count I), violation of Massachusetts substantive due process pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 12, sec. 11I (Count II), violation of free exercise under the First Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Count III), violation of equal protection (disparate treatment and impact based on race) under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Count IV), and violation of procedural due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Count IX). …

“Defendant advances several arguments in her Motion to Dismiss. The Court considers only three of her arguments. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks standing under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1) to bring the instant Complaint against her. Second, Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). Lastly, Defendant argues she is entitled to invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. …

“Because subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue, this Court must first address whether Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. …

“… The crux of Defendant Ojikutu’s argument is that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that there is a traceable connection between the injury and the challenged conduct. In other words, Defendant Ojikutu argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged causation. This Court agrees. …

“… Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant rests on three distinct allegations: (1) that, on information and belief, Defendant had the authority to grant or deny religious accommodation requests; (2) that Defendant’s research is evidence of her racially or religiously discriminatory intent; and (3) that the City of Boston’s Mandatory Vaccine Policy was based on Defendant’s medical advice. …

“Defendant Ojikutu contends that, as the BPHC statute indicates, she was not involved with the City’s decisions with regard to employee compliance with the Vaccine or Test Policy. Additionally, she contends that she plays no role in deciding employee religious accommodation requests. … Thus, according to Defendant Ojikutu, she had no part in Plaintiff’s alleged injury. Plaintiff, on the other hand, opposes this argument, but does not allege any specific conduct on the part of Defendant Ojikutu that caused him harm and infringed on his right to refuse medical treatment. Plaintiff simply asserts a conclusory statement that Defendant Ojikutu denied him the religious accommodation request.

“However, Plaintiff’s own allegations refute this. …

“… The Court fails to see how Defendant’s research had any impact on — let alone could be the cause of — his religious accommodation denial. The primary research the Plaintiff relies on was published after his religious accommodation request was denied. …

“… The Court does not find that Defendant Ojikutu’s research qualifies as direct evidence that indicates a discriminatory animus towards Plaintiff, or others, who share his race or religion. In fact, the Court finds that Defendant Ojikutu’s scholarship appears to address vaccine mistrust among Black Americans to promote health equity.

“As stated above, Defendant Ojikutu’s research provides insight into why COVID-19 vaccination rates are low among Black Americans and elaborates on strategies to provide care that is culturally competent. Defendant further elaborates in her research on the need to acknowledge systemic racism as a cause of medical mistrust in the Black American community and the importance of using transparent messaging techniques. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant’s research aims to prevent race-based discrimination in health, not create it. The contention that Defendant’s research was the primary force of the religious accommodation denial is, at best, too attenuated, and at worst, nonsensical. …

“Even if Plaintiff had sufficiently proven all elements for standing — and this Court holds he has not — his claims would still be dismissed as they fail to meet the requirement of plausibility to withstand a 12(b)(6) challenge. …

“… As the Court has already noted, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest Defendant Ojikutu was involved in any conduct related to the denial of his religious accommodation request. Nor was the Defendant involved with the decision to place Plaintiff on unpaid administrative leave upon his noncompliance with the Vaccine or Test Policy. Plaintiff simply makes conclusory statements as to Defendant Ojikutu’s involvement, only noting that she had the authority to grant or deny his request and that she, along with the other Defendants, did so, causing him injury. In other words, the same causality flaws that existed for standing also exist for plausibility. …

“… Without any specific allegations highlighting Defendant Ojikutu’s involvement with the religious accommodation request process, Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard of plausibility required to endure a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. … Accordingly, the Court must grant Defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion.”

Browder v. Ojikutu, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-452-25) (18 pages) (Kelley, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-11588-AK) (Aug. 15, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.