Vanessa Buss v. PeaceHealth

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted PeaceHealth’s motion for summary judgment in Vanessa Buss’s disability-accommodation action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Oregon law. The court held that Buss failed to establish that she was disabled under the ADA, including that her asserted hypersensitive immune system substantially limited a major life activity or that she had a record of, or was regarded as having, such an impairment. The court also addressed PeaceHealth’s undue-hardship and direct-threat defenses and excluded or rejected proposed expert evidence concerning ivermectin as an alternative to vaccination.

Holdings

1. Buss failed to produce evidence that her alleged hypersensitive immune system caused a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities, that she had a record of such an impairment, or that PeaceHealth regarded her as having such an impairment. The court also rejected the argument that receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is itself a qualifying major life activity.
2. Buss could not perform all essential functions of her Quality Program Lead position fully remotely because her safety-responder and regulatory duties required onsite presence.
3. Even assuming Buss established a disability and prima facie accommodation claim, allowing her to work onsite while unvaccinated with ivermectin prophylaxis, or restructuring her position to permit fully remote work, would impose significant difficulty or expense and therefore constitute undue hardship under the ADA and Oregon law.
4. PeaceHealth was also entitled to summary judgment on its direct-threat defense because allowing Buss and similarly situated unvaccinated employees to work onsite, including with ivermectin treatment, posed a significant risk of substantial harm to others that the proposed accommodations would not eliminate or reduce.
5. Dr. Huber's testimony was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert because she was not qualified to offer the proposed scientific opinions and her ivermectin opinion was not based on sufficient facts or data or reliable scientific methodology.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Buss produced sufficient evidence that she was disabled under the ADA or Oregon disability law through an actual impairment, a record of impairment, or being regarded as having an impairment.
2. Whether Buss was a qualified individual who could perform the essential functions of her Quality Program Lead position with or without reasonable accommodation.
3. Whether ivermectin treatment or fully remote work was a reasonable accommodation that would avoid undue hardship to PeaceHealth.
4. Whether allowing Buss to work onsite while unvaccinated would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others.
5. Whether Dr. Colleen Huber's proposed expert testimony concerning ivermectin was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.

Disposition

other