## Facts

- Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo worked as a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital.
- She typically received eight or nine overtime shifts per month.
- The hospital knew of her religious objection to participating in abortion procedures.
- While working an overtime shift, she was required to participate in an abortion procedure despite her objection.
- She complained to supervisors and filed a grievance about being made to participate.
- The following month, she was assigned only one overtime shift.
- Her manager told her she would not receive further overtime shifts unless she agreed to participate in abortion procedures.
- She sued Mount Sinai under the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c), alleging discrimination based on her refusal to participate in abortions.
- The parties agreed the statute contains no express private right of action, and the hospital sought summary judgment arguing there is no implied private right either.

## Issues

1. Does the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c), imply a private right of action allowing a hospital employee to sue a federally funded hospital for discrimination based on refusal to participate in abortion procedures?

## Decision

- The court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on the Church Amendment claim.
- The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c) does not create an implied private right of action.
- Because the statute provides no private remedy, the plaintiff could not pursue her claim in federal court under the Church Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A private right of action exists only if Congress intended to create both an individual right and a private judicial remedy; courts do not create remedies absent that intent.
- Statutory text that operates as a condition on federal funding and is directed at regulated entities, rather than written in rights-creating terms for individuals, generally does not support an implied private right of action.
- The absence of an express enforcement mechanism for private plaintiffs and the lack of a remedial scheme within the statute weigh strongly against implying a private cause of action.
- Under the approach reflected in cases such as *Alexander v. Sandoval*, congressional intent must be found in the statute’s text and structure; policy concerns about enforcement gaps do not justify implying a private remedy.

## Conclusion

The Eastern District of New York concluded that the Church Amendment’s prohibition on certain discrimination by federally funded hospitals does not authorize private lawsuits by employees, and it entered judgment for Mount Sinai because § 300a-7(c) contains no implied private right of action.


Cenzon-DeCarlo v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 2010 WL 169485 (2010)