Berens v. Yale New Haven Health Servs. Corp.

25-3232-cv Berens v. Yale New Haven Health Servs. Corp. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of October, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ RONDA BERENS, DALTON KELLY, DILARA BAUNACH, ELAINE MINER, JESSICA GRASSO, DONNA SAVOIE, KATHY FARRELLY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 25-3232-cv YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. * ------------------------------------------------------------------ * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above.  FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: MATTHEW S. CARLONE, Wethersfield, CT FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: TRISANA N. SPENCE (Sarah R. Skubas, on the brief), Jackson Lewis P.C., Hartford, CT Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-appellants Ronda Berens, Dalton Kelly, Dilara Baunach, Elaine Miner, Jessica Grasso, Donna Savoie, and Kathy Farrelly appeal from the November 26, 2025 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Hall, J.) dismissing their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. On appeal, the Plaintiffs-appellants principally argue that the District Court erred in concluding that their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) failed plausibly to allege that the Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation (“YNHHS”) acted under color of state law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 2  “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that defendants violated plaintiff’s federal rights while acting under color of state law.” McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 229 (2d Cir. 2014). A private actor acts “under color of state law” when they are a “willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.” Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). “But a private entity does not become a state actor for purposes of § 1983 merely on the basis of the private entity’s creation, funding, licensing, or regulation by the government.” Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 207 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). “Rather, there must be such a close nexus between the [s]tate and the challenged action that the state is responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). We agree with the District Court that the SAC fails plausibly to allege a close nexus between Connecticut and the challenged conduct. Despite YNHHS’s alleged involvement in the public-private partnership and other collaborative public-health efforts, the SAC does not plead any facts demonstrating Connecticut’s participation in YNNHS’s ultimate adoption, promulgation, and enforcement of its employee vaccination policy—specifically, YNNHS’s decisions 3 to discipline, discharge, or implement testing requirements for each of the Plaintiffs-appellants. Plaintiffs-appellants have thus failed adequately to plead that the State and YNHHS operated as willful joint participants in terminating employees for failing to become vaccinated or requiring that employees undertake periodic testing. Urging a different conclusion, the Plaintiffs-appellants contend that the District Court mischaracterized or disregarded various factual allegations to justify dismissal of their claims. We are not persuaded. The District Court was “free to disregard conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Noto v. 22nd Century Grp., Inc., 35 F.4th 95, 102 (2d Cir. 2022). The allegations that the District Court disregarded—for example, that “YNHHS and the State of Connecticut were jointly and inextricably responsible for YNHHS implementing its COVID-19 ‘[v]accine’ [m]andate such that the actions of one is indistinguishable from the other,” App’x 36—are either entirely conclusory or legal conclusions masquerading as alleged facts. The Plaintiffs-appellants also point us to the SAC’s allegations that Connecticut’s Mass Vaccination Plan contemplated successive phases triggered by vaccine supply and demand, and that voluntary vaccination in Connecticut 4 declined sharply in the summer of 2021. While these allegations may explain why YNHHS and Connecticut each acted to adopt their respective employee vaccination policies, they do not provide facts from which one might reasonably infer that Connecticut was involved in YNHHS’s decisions to fire its employees or force them to comply with its testing requirement. We have considered the Plaintiffs-appellants’ remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 5