Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-2352
DEPARTMENTS;
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00325)
Argued:
December 9, 2010
Decided:
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and Patrick Michael DUFFY,
Senior United States District Judge for the District of South
Carolina, sitting by designation.
Jennifer
Workman
filed
this
42
U.S.C.
1983
admit
her
daughter
to
public
school
without
the
We now affirm.
I.
Workman is the mother of two school-aged children: M.W. and
S.W.
time
she
began
receiving
vaccinations.
In
light
of
S.W.s
been
immunized
for
diphtheria,
sought
to
take
polio,
rubeola,
advantage
of
an
exception
rubella,
However,
under
the
reputable
physician
showing
that
immunization
for
these
Id.
Thus, in an
condition.
Mingo
County
Health
Officer,
Dr.
Manolo
requirements
attended
for
the
M.W.
to
attend
pre-kindergarten
school
in
program
at
Mingo
County.
Lenore
Grade
Defendant
Dwight
Dials,
sent
letter
to
Dr.
Cathy
certificate.
3,
2007,
Dr.
Slemp
recommending
exemption be denied.
responded
Workmans
by
request
letter
for
dated
medical
County Schools would not admit her; accordingly, Workman homeschooled M.W.
Workman
guardian
of
brought
her
suit
minor
individually
child,
M.W.
and
She
as
parent
filed
an
and
amended
Virginia
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Resources
(Defendants).
In
her
complaint,
Workman
raised
constitutional
and
of
Equal
Protection
Workman
alleged
that
Section
16-3-4
by
and
Defendants
refusing
Due
Process.
violated
to
West
accept
In
addition,
Virginia
Dr.
Code
MacCallums
certificate.
In a memorandum opinion and order of November 3, 2009, the
district
court
determined
that
the
Mingo
County
Board
of
were
entitled
Workmans claims.
to
Eleventh
Amendment
immunity
from
Workmans
constitutional
claims
lacked
merit.
Finally,
the
Workman appeals.
II.
We first address Workmans argument that this case presents
issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Summary
properly
pursuant
to
in
state
overturning
law;
and
(2)
Workmans
whether
medical
exemption
Workmans
religious
Board
of
Education,
Superintendent
Dials,
and
State
court
state
that
ruled
law
that
claim
state
law
it
for
lacked
injunctive
provided
6
jurisdiction
relief
cause
of
and
to
The
hear
saw
action
no
for
damages.
Workman
does
not
explain
how
such
purely
legal
Accordingly,
we hold that the district court did not err in ruling that this
issue did not preclude summary judgment.
West Virginia, 339 F.3d 212, 214 (4th Cir. 2003) (Because this
dispute ultimately turns entirely on a question of statutory
interpretation, the district court properly proceeded to resolve
the case on summary judgment.).
Regarding
the
second
issue,
the
district
court
stated:
sincerity
those
beliefs
of
Workmans
do
not
religious
exempt
her
beliefs
from
but
complying
ruled
that
with
West
Because a different
it,
too,
did
not
preclude
summary
judgment.
See
JKC
III.
Workman
next
argues
that
West
Virginias
mandatory
make
respecting
no
law
prohibiting
amend. I.
the
free
an
establishment
exercise
of
religion,
thereof . . . .
U.S.
or
Const.
Cantwell
level
of
scrutiny.
Workman
argues
that
the
laws
Defendants
of
Or.
v.
Smith,
494
U.S.
872
(1990),
abandoned
the
rational
basis
review.
Workman
counters
that
Smith
School
Dist.,
540
F.3d
231,
244-47
(3rd
Cir.
2008)
enforce
vaccination.
Id.
at
12.
Proceeding
under
the
to
inhabitants
an
to
epidemic,
be
adopted
vaccinated
regulation
against
requiring
its
Id.
Upon
smallpox.
Prince
v.
Massachusetts,
321
U.S.
158
(1944),
the
Id. at
cannot
claim
freedom
from
compulsory
vaccination
Thus,
for
the
Id. at 166
Id. at 166-67.
Brief
Supp.
2d
938,
Additionally,
we
954
(E.D.
reject
Ark.
Workmans
2002)
(footnote
request
that
omitted).
we
overrule
courts
no
matter
how
misguided
the
judges
of
those
state
wish
to
interest
prevent
can
the
exist.
spread
On
of
the
contrary,
communicable
the
diseases
condition
of
admission
10
to
school
does
not
unconstitutionally
This
conclusion
infringe
is
Workmans
buttressed
by
right
the
to
free
opinions
exercise.
of
numerous
in comparable cases.
seeking
to
avoid
compulsory
immunization
for
their
A.2d
107,
112
n.8
(Md.
1982)
(Marylands
compulsory
of
eliminating
and
preventing
certain
communicable
diseases.); Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 932, 377 S.W.2d 816,
819 (Ark. 1964) (According to the great weight of authority, it
is within the police power of the State to require that school
children
be
requirement
vaccinated
does
not
against
violate
the
smallpox,
constitutional
11
and
that
rights
such
of
IV.
Workman
next
argues
that
West
Virginias
immunization
Clause
State
shall
jurisdiction
the
must
equal
amend. XIV, 1.
plaintiff
of
the
.
Fourteenth
.
deny
protection
Amendment
The Equal
provides
to
any
person
of
the
laws.
that
within
U.S.
its
Const.
demonstrate
that
he
has
been
treated
the
unequal
purposeful
648,
654
claim
treatment
was
discrimination.
(4th
Cir.
challenges
result
Morrison
2001).
the
the
Here,
West
v.
of
Garraghty,
Workmans
Virginia
intentional
equal
statute
239
or
F.3d
protection
as-applied
and
facially.
Regarding her as-applied challenge, Workman argues that the
school
system
discriminated
against
her
when
Defendant
Dials
resulting
from
intentional
or
purposeful
for
medical
Superintendant . . . .
exemption
during
my
tenure
as
F.3d
4,
(4th
Cir.
1994)
(rejecting
equal
protection
her
facial
challenge,
Workman
notes
that
the
court
ruled
that,
although
state
may
The
provide
(1922),
process
where
challenge
it
to
considered
an
equal
ordinances
in
San
protection
Antonio,
and
Texas,
due
that
that
Id. at 175.
it
is
within
police
decisions
by
this
court
power
of
Id. at 176.
also
settled
State
to
A long line
that
in
the
applied,
and
that
regulation
is
not
violative
of
the
13
no
denial
of
equal
protection
Id. at 170-71.
in
excluding
And there
[Jehovahs
Id. at 171.
decisions
in
Zucht
and
Prince,
reject
Workmans
14
V.
Workman next argues that denying her a religious exemption
from the mandatory vaccination statute violates her substantive
due process right to do what she reasonably believes is best for
her child.
She
Due
Process
Clause
provides
heightened
protection
(1997).
fundamental
To
right
determine
subject
whether
to
strict
an
asserted
scrutiny
right
under
is
the
Due
Id. at 720-21.
Id. at 728.
state
may
immunized.
constitutionally
require
school
children
to
be
176; cf. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31-32 (noting that the principle
of vaccination as a means to prevent the spread of [disease] has
been enforced in many States by statutes making the vaccination
of children a condition to their right to enter or remain in
public schools.).
interest
of
society
in
fighting
the
spread
of
contagious
Sherr, 672 F.
VI.
Workman also argues that the district court erred in ruling
that
certain
Amendment.
Defendants
were
protected
by
the
Eleventh
722,
731
(4th
Cir.
1996)
(citation
omitted).
Because
VII.
Finally,
Workman
argues
that
subject
after
dismissing
all
of
matter
jurisdiction
Workmans
federal
claims,
it
Virginia
law
permits
private
cause
of
action
for
court
can
damages
contends
that
the
district
retain
In general, this is
See 28 U.S.C.
1367; but see Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
U.S.
89,
106
(1984)
(holding
17
Eleventh
Amendment
prohibits
federal
courts
from
instructing
state
officials
on
how
to
has
original
jurisdiction.
28
U.S.C.
1367(c)(3)
And
VIII.
In sum, we hold that the district court did not err in
awarding summary judgment where there were no genuine issues of
material fact.
18
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
in
declining
to
exercise
19