Home » Legislature & Courts » Briefs and Complaints » Reproductive Freedom Briefs and Complaints
Bayfront Medical Center Complaint
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Tampa Division
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA,
INC., AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION
OF CHURCH AND STATE,
on behalf of their Pinellas County members,
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWEST
AND CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.,
on behalf of its Pinellas County patients,
JEANIE BLUE, BETH LINDENBERG,
LEE DE CESARE, and IRENE L. MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, BAYFRONT
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., BAYFRONT
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and
BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
COMPLAINT
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiffs, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc., (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans United), on behalf of their Pinellas County members, Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, Inc. (Planned Parenthood), on behalf of its Pinellas County patients, Jeanie Blue, Beth Lindenberg, Lee DeCesare, and Irene L. Miller, bring this action against the City of St. Petersburg (City), Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. (Bayfront), Bayfront Health System, Inc. (Bayfront Health), and BayCare Health System, Inc. (BayCare) under 42 U.S.C. ? 1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Chapters 119 and 286 of the Florida Statutes, and Article I, ? 24 of the Florida Constitution because they have been injured and will continue to be injured by Bayfront's agreement to be governed by various Catholic religious tenets and philosophies, by the City's direct and indirect support and subsidization of Bayfront, and by Bayfront's failure to comply with the public records and open meetings laws of the State of Florida.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. ?? 1331, 1343(3), and 1367(a).
2. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. ? 1391(b) because the controversy arose in St. Petersburg, Florida, which is located in the Middle District of Florida.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the National Organization for Women (NOW), acting on behalf of its Pinellas County members, is a national membership organization with members residing and paying taxes in St. Petersburg, Florida. NOW is dedicated to protecting and advancing women's constitutional and civil rights, including their rights to access to a full spectrum of reproductive health services. Its St. Petersburg members are injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because they cannot obtain a full spectrum of reproductive health services at the Bayfront facility, they have lawful advance directives that will not be given effect at the Bayfront facility if inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, resulting in prolonged and unnecessary treatment and medical costs, their municipal taxpayer dollars are used to directly and indirectly support and subsidize the Bayfront facility and the Catholic Church, and they are offended by the Bayfront facility's adoption of Catholic religious tenets and philosophies.
4. Plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. (ACLU), acting on behalf of its nearly 850 members in Pinellas County, is the Florida affiliate of the national ACLU, a nationwide nonpartisan organization of nearly 300,000 members dedicated to protecting the fundamental liberties and basic civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The ACLU and its affiliates have long been active in protecting the rights of women in the area of reproductive choice, and work to forestall legal and political developments that may impede women's access to safe, effective abortion procedures throughout pregnancy and that, more generally, may erode women's autonomy and privacy in the context of reproductive decision-making. The ACLU has worked in the courts, Congress and state legislatures to protect the privacy rights of competent adults to control medical decisions about a course of treatment affecting their health and lives through such instruments and devices as advance directives. The ACLU is also dedicated to preserving a healthy and lawful separation of church and state. Its St. Petersburg members are injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because they cannot obtain a full spectrum of reproductive health services at the Bayfront facility, they have lawful advance directives that will not be given effect at the Bayfront facility if inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, resulting in prolonged and unnecessary treatment and medical costs, their municipal taxpayer dollars are used to directly and indirectly support and subsidize the Bayfront facility and the Catholic Church, and they are offended by the Bayfront facility's adoption of Catholic religious tenets and philosophies.
5. Plaintiff, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans United), acting on behalf of its Pinellas County members, is a national membership organization with members residing and paying taxes in St. Petersburg, Florida. Americans United is dedicated to maintaining a proper separation of church and state, insuring religious freedom for all Americans, including its members in St. Petersburg, and protecting its members' rights to select health care options without religious interference. Its St. Petersburg members are injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because they cannot obtain a full spectrum of reproductive health services at the Bayfront facility, they have lawful advance directives that will not be given effect at the Bayfront facility if inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, resulting in prolonged and unnecessary treatment and medical costs, their municipal taxpayer dollars are used to directly and indirectly support and subsidize the Bayfront facility and the Catholic Church, and they are offended by the Bayfront facility's adoption of Catholic religious tenets and philosophies.
6. Plaintiff, Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, Inc. (Planned Parenthood), acting on behalf of its Pinellas County patients, is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, which provides reproductive health services to patients in St. Petersburg, Florida and elsewhere in Southwest and Central Florida. Planned Parenthood is dedicated to insuring that its patients are afforded access to a full spectrum of reproductive health services. Its patients are injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because they are unable to use the Bayfront facility for a full spectrum of reproductive health services. Planned Parenthood would refer patients to the Bayfront facility for such services but is precluded from doing so by the adoption of the Bayfront-St. Anthony's Health Care Guidelines for the Termination of Pregnancy.
7. Plaintiff, Jeanie Blue, is a resident and taxpayer of the City. Blue has used the Bayfront facility in the past, is of child-bearing capacity, has a primary care physician on staff at the Bayfront facility, and will likely use the facility again in the future. She is injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because she cannot obtain a full spectrum of reproductive health services at the Bayfront facility; because her municipal tax dollars are used to directly and indirectly support and subsidize the Bayfront facility and the Catholic Church; and because she is offended by the Bayfront facility's adoption of Catholic religious tenets and philosophies.
8. Plaintiff, Beth Lindenberg, is a resident and taxpayer of the City and is a member of the Pinellas County Chapter of NOW. Lindenberg has a lawful advance directive which instructs medical personnel on the procedures that can be performed to save her life and under what circumstances life-sustaining measures should be terminated. She has been a patient at the Bayfront facility and expects to be a patient in the future. She is injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because her lawful advance directives may not be followed at the Bayfront facility if inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, resulting in prolonged and unnecessary treatment and medical costs; because her municipal tax dollars are used to directly and indirectly support and subsidize the Bayfront facility and the Catholic Church; and because she is offended by the Bayfront facility's adoption of Catholic religious tenets and philosophies.
9. Plaintiff, Lee DeCesare, is a resident of Madeira Beach, Florida, which is located in Pinellas County. DeCesare is a member of the Pinellas County Chapter of NOW and has a lawful advance directive which instructs medical personnel on the procedures that can be performed to save her life and under what circumstances life-sustaining measures should be terminated. DeCesare has been a patient at the Bayfront facility and expects to be a patient in the future. She is injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because her lawful advance directives may not be followed at the Bayfront facility if inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, resulting in prolonged and unnecessary treatment and medical costs; and because she is offended by the Bayfront facility's adoption of Catholic religious tenets and philosophies.
10. Plaintiff, Irene L. Miller, is a resident and taxpayer of the City. Miller is President of the Pinellas County Chapter of the ACLU. Miller has a lawful advance directive which instructs medical personnel on the procedures that can be performed to save her life and under what circumstances life-sustaining measures should be terminated. Miller has been a patient at the Bayfront facility and expects to be a patient in the future. She is injured by Bayfront's participation in the BayCare alliance because her lawful advance directives may not be followed at the Bayfront facility if inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, resulting in prolonged and unnecessary treatment and medical costs; because her municipal tax dollars are used to directly and indirectly support and subsidize the Bayfront facility and the Catholic Church; and because she is offended by the Bayfront facility's adoption of Catholic religious tenets and philosophies.
11. Defendant, the City, is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida.
12. Defendant, Bayfront, is a not-for-profit corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of a hospital in St. Petersburg known as Bayfront Medical Center, the main building of which and the ground on which it sits is owned by the City. The property described in this paragraph will be referred to as the Bayfront facility.
13. Defendant, Bayfront Health System, Inc., (Bayfront Health), is a not-for-profit corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, which has entered into a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) with Bayfront and several other not-for-profit health care systems in the Tampa Bay area. Bayfront Health may have an interest in the lease between the City and Bayfront.
14. Defendant, BayCare Health System, Inc., (BayCare), is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is responsible for the management and control of the participating health facilities governed by the JOA. BayCare may have an interest in the lease between the City and Bayfront.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
15. Prior to 1968, the City owned and operated a hospital known as the Mound Park Hospital (the Bayfront facility) in St. Petersburg, Florida.
16. Pursuant to municipal policy and custom, the City in 1968 formally leased the Bayfront facility to Bayfront.
17. Pursuant to municipal policy and custom, the City and Bayfront in 1983 renewed their long-term lease for 50 years and Bayfront continued to operate the Bayfront facility.
18. Bayfront currently pays $10.00 per year to the City to lease the Bayfront facility.
19. Bayfront's rent is below fair market value, and the City and its taxpayers directly and indirectly subsidize and support the Bayfront facility's operations.
20. The City has expended taxpayer dollars on overseeing Bayfront's operations and on its approval of Bayfront's entry into the BayCare alliance.
21. The City has at all times retained fee ownership of the Bayfront facility, its fixtures and its surrounding premises.
22. Pursuant to the lease, the City has delegated to Bayfront responsibility for the daily operations of the Bayfront facility.
23. Pursuant to its lease with the City, Bayfront is required to operate the Bayfront facility as a hospital serving a public purpose, including providing emergency services to citizens regardless of ability to pay, and operating the premises without regard to sex, race, color or creed.
24. In 1997, Bayfront and Bayfront Health entered into an alliance (the BayCare alliance) with several other hospitals in the Tampa Bay area, including two whose policies are controlled by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the Catholic Church).
25. To implement the BayCare alliance, the partner hospitals entered into a Joint Operating Agreement (the JOA) which governs the operations of all the hospitals in the BayCare alliance.
26. Negotiation of the JOA was conducted in private meetings which were not open to the public, as required by the Florida Constitution and Florida law.
27. In the JOA, Bayfront agreed that the Bayfront facility would be operated in conformance with the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) of the Catholic Church (attached as Exhibit A).
28. The City consented to Bayfront's entering into the BayCare alliance, without using reasonable diligence to ascertain that Bayfront intended to obligate itself to adopt and/or apply Catholic doctrine to the Bayfront facility.
29. The Catholic Church and its agents implement and follow the ERDs in the hospitals and medical institutions they own and/or operate throughout the United States and generally insist that any non-Catholic partner hospitals abide by the ERDs as well.
30. The ERDs include limitations and prohibitions on otherwise lawful medical procedures, including, inter alia, abortion, sterilization, emergency contraception and artificial insemination, and limit the full implementation of patients' wishes identified in advance directives and living wills to the extent they do not comport with Catholic religious doctrine. See Exhibit A, Ethical and Religious Directives.
31. Bayfront has refused to open to the public the records relating to its negotiation of the JOA and adoption and application of the ERDs to the Bayfront facility, notwithstanding formal requests made in compliance with Florida law, as required by the Florida Constitution and Florida law.
32. After entering into the JOA, Bayfront began to operate jointly with St. Anthony's, a neighboring Catholic hospital, as "Bayfront-St. Anthony's Health Care", with a cross in its logo. Bayfront's Articles of Incorporation were amended to include a religious purpose.
33. All obstetrical services for Bayfront-St. Anthony's Health Care were consolidated at the Bayfront facility. Guidelines for the Termination of Pregnancy were issued on or about January 1, 1999, stating, inter alia, that "no procedure involving the direct termination of pregnancy before viability should be permitted", and further stating that "if questions arise as to whether a certain course of patient care is appropriate, an Ethical and Religious Directives (ERD) consult shall be performed." See Exhibit B, Guidelines for the Termination of Pregnancy for Bayfront-St. Anthony's Health Care.
34. Board members, officers, employees, physicians, volunteers, students and contracted agents of Bayfront-St. Anthony's Health Care are expected to sign a statement documenting their adherence to a Code of Organizational Ethics that includes a commitment to "follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops as they apply to your institution". See Exhibit C, Code of Organizational Ethics.
35. On October 5, 1999, one of the undersigned counsel, on behalf of the Coalition for Religious Freedom In Our Secular Hospitals (which included some of the Plaintiffs herein) requested from officers of Bayfront and BayCare, under the Florida Public Records Law, the following documents:
? The Joint Operating Agreement between Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., Bayfront Health System, Inc., Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny Health System, Inc., Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., Morton Plant Mease Health Care, Inc., St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., South Florida Baptist Hospital, Inc., Trustees of Mease Hospital, Inc., and Regional Healthcare System, Inc. ("The Participants").
? Guidelines for the termination of pregnancies adopted by all The Participants at the request of the Catholic Participants.
36. On October 15, 1999, counsel for Bayfront and BayCare responded that the JOA was a "confidential document and cannot be released to persons who were not parties to it." Counsel further responded that "the Joint Operating Agreement is not, in our view, a public record." Bayfront and BayCare voluntarily agreed, however, to provide a copy of the Guidelines for the Termination of Pregnancy for Bayfront-St. Anthony's Health Care.
37. On February 23, 2000, one of the undersigned counsel made a request of counsel for Bayfront under the Florida Public Records and Open Meetings laws for the following documents:
? All documents relating to the negotiation of the Joint Operating Agreement between Bayfront Medical Center and its partners in the strategic alliance known as BayCare or the Regional Healthcare System.
? All documents relating to any meetings between the participants in BayCare or the Regional Healthcare System during which any of the terms and conditions contained in the Joint Operating Agreement were discussed and/or negotiated.
? All documents relating to the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church as applied to Bayfront Medical Center through the Joint Operating Agreement of the participants in BayCare or the Regional Health System.
? All documents relating to the implementation of the Guidelines for the Termination of Pregnancies as promulgated by BayCare and/or any of its participants as applied to Bayfront Medical Center.
? All documents referring to Bayfront Medical Center and/or Bayfront-St. Anthony's as a mission of the Sisters of Allegheny.
? All documents relating to the interpretation of the Category One Key Operational Indicators enumerated in Section A of Exhibit H of the Joint Operating Agreement as subjecting Bayfront Medical Center to the official teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
? All documents relating to changes in the end-of-life procedures at Bayfront Medical Center since it joined the BayCare alliance.
? All documents relating to the Catholic baptism of any fetus or stillborn infant delivered at Bayfront Medical Center to parents who were not of the Catholic faith.
38. On March 3, 2000, counsel for Bayfront refused to supply the requested records.
39. On or about March 30, 2000, the City sued Bayfront, Bayfront Health and BayCare in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:00-CV-623-T-25A, alleging, inter alia, that those defendants had entangled it in religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
40. On or about March 31, 2000, Bayfront sued the City in Pinellas County Circuit Court for a declaration that it was not in violation of its lease of the Bayfront facility with the City. The City removed that action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:00-CV-686-T-25A, and has moved to consolidate it with its own action.
41. On or about May 5, 2000, Bayfront amended its Articles of Incorporation once again, deleting the religious purpose.
42. Upon information and belief, certain limited changes have been made in the terms of the JOA. Notwithstanding any such changes, Bayfront continues to apply some if not all of the ERDs at the Bayfront facility, particularly in the area of termination of pregnancy.
43. The ERDs are subject to unilateral change by the Catholic Church, and upon Plaintiffs' information and belief, BayCare may at any time insist that new or additional provisions of the ERDs be implemented at the Bayfront facility.
COUNT I
(VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW)
44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference.
45. The City and its taxpayers directly and/or indirectly subsidize and support the Bayfront facility's operations.
46. The City's support and subsidization of Bayfront under the circumstances described above violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
47. Bayfront's application of the ERDs to the Bayfront facility constitutes state action and is accomplished under color of state law, thereby violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the City and Bayfront and request the following relief:
A. Judgment under 28 U.S.C. ?? 2101-2102 declaring that those aspects of Bayfront's operations that are religious in nature, including but not limited to the application of the ERDs, as well as the ban and/or limitations on contraception, abortions, sterilizations, artificial inseminations, and advance directives at the Bayfront facility violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated and applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
B. A permanent injunction barring the City and Bayfront from continuing to operate the Bayfront facility in a manner that is religious in nature, including application of the ERDs;
C. An award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ? 1988.
D. Any and all additional relief the Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT II
(VIOLATION OF STATE LAW)
48. Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference.
49. The JOA which obligated the Bayfront facility to be subject to the ERDs was negotiated by Bayfront, Bayfront Health, BayCare and its other member hospitals in meetings which were closed to the public.
50. Under Ch. 119 and Ch. 286, Florida Statutes, and Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, public agencies are obligated to make their records available to the public and to conduct their business in meetings open to the public.
51. The City is a public agency within the meaning of the Florida Public Records and Open Meetings Laws. See ?119.011 (2), ?286.011(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). Bayfront is acting on behalf of Defendant City, which delegated to Bayfront the public duty of operating the Bayfront facility, and is subject to the Florida Public Records and Open Meetings laws.
52. Bayfront has been, and is now, in contravention of the Florida Public Records Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and is engaging in policies and practices of unlawfully denying or obstructing Plaintiffs and other members of the public from gaining access to public records.
53. The improper policies and practices of Bayfront as an agent of the City, undertaken in violation of the Public Records Act, are of a continuing and intentional nature, and are apt to be repeated if not immediately enjoined.
54. Unless enjoined, the improper policies and practices of Bayfront will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm by denying them access to public records.
55. For this irreparable harm, Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
56. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel and are entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to ?119.12, Fla. Stat.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court take supplemental jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter under 28 U.S.C. ? 1367(a) and enter an order granting the following relief:
A. Issue a declaratory judgment that any records in the custody and control of Bayfront related to the public records requests described above are subject to the disclosure requirements of ?119.07, Fla. Stat.; and
B. Issue a declaratory judgment that the JOA is void ab initio because it was negotiated at meetings which were closed to the public; and
C. Issue a permanent mandatory injunction against Defendants, enjoining them from denying access to public records and ordering them to produce such records as Plaintiffs have requested; and
D.
Award Plaintiffs their court costs and attorney's fees incurred in bringing this action, as provided in ?119.12, Fla. Stat., as well as such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Marcia S. Cohen
Marcia S. Cohen, P.A.
360 Central Avenue, Suite 1260
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727) 894-4446
(727) 894-6251 (fax)
FL Bar # 449296
Legal Counsel, Florida NOW
Cooperating Attorney
ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.
Ayesha Khan
Litigation Counsel
Americans United for Separation of Church & State
518 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 466-3234
(202) 466-2587
Kim Gandy
National Organization for Women Foundation, Inc.
733 15th St., NW, Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 628-8669 ext. 126
(202) 785-8576 (fax)
Mark R. Brown
Professor of Law
Stetson University
1401 61st Street South
St. Petersburg, FL 33707
(727) 562-7856
(727) 347-3738 (fax)
Cooperating Attorney, ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.
