DR. STEPHEN T. SKOLY, JR., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DANIEL J. MCKEE, in his official and individual capacities as the Governor of the State of Rhode Island;
DR. JAMES MCDONALD, in his official and individual capacities as the former Interim Director of the Rhode Island Department of Health;
DR. UTPALA BANDY, in her official and individual capacities as the current Interim Director of the Rhode Island Department of Health;
THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND;
MATTHEW D. WELDON, in his official and individual capacities as the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Labor & Training;
DR. NICOLE ALEXANDER-SCOTT, in her official and individual capacities as the former Director of the Rhode Island Department of Health;
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH;
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, Defendants, Appellees.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Lynch
I. Background
Dr. Stephen T. Skoly, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon licensed to practice dentistry in Rhode Island, publicly refused to comply with a COVID-19 Emergency Regulation issued by the Rhode Island Department of Health (RI DOH) mandating vaccination for all healthcare workers. Following his noncompliance, the RI DOH issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order against him. Skoly subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging violations of his equal protection, due process, and First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the state officials were either entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Skoly appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal.
II. Factual and Procedural History
The RI DOH issued Emergency Regulation 216-RICR-20-15-8 on August 17, 2021, effective October 1, 2021, requiring all healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualified for specific medical exemptions per CDC guidelines. Dr. Skoly publicly announced his intention to defy the regulation due to his medical history, including prior Bell’s palsy and recovery from COVID-19, despite not qualifying for the stated exemptions.
On October 1, 2021, RI DOH issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, which mandated Skoly to cease his practice until he complied with the vaccination requirement. Skoly requested a hearing and sought to continue practicing without compliance during the administrative appeal, which was denied. The emergency regulation expired on March 11, 2022, and RI DOH subsequently dismissed the Notice.
Skoly’s Third Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on September 29, 2022, sought damages against several state officials in their individual capacities for allegedly violating his constitutional rights.
III. District Court Ruling
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that:
- RI DOH officials were entitled to absolute immunity for their prosecutorial roles in issuing and enforcing the compliance order.
- Governor McKee was protected by qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established right for Skoly to practice while violating the vaccine mandate.
- The First Amendment retaliation claim failed as the posting of the Notice was deemed government speech and thus not actionable.
IV. Court of Appeals Analysis
A. Absolute Immunity for RI DOH Officials
The appellate court upheld the district court’s ruling that RI DOH officials had absolute immunity. The issuance of the Notice and enforcement of the compliance order were prosecutorial actions under Rhode Island law, affording them absolute immunity, even if carried out maliciously or corruptly (Goldstein v. Galvin, 719 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013)).
B. Qualified Immunity for Governor McKee
Governor McKee was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found no clearly established right for Skoly to practice while unvaccinated in defiance of the regulation. The regulation was in line with CDC guidelines, providing a rational basis for enforcement actions against non-compliant individuals.
C. First Amendment Retaliation Claim
The court found Skoly’s allegations insufficient to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim. The prosecution focused on individuals who openly violated the law, a passive enforcement policy upheld in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985). Skoly’s claim lacked sufficient detail to show he was targeted solely for his speech.
V. Conclusion
The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Skoly’s complaint, holding that the state officials were either absolutely or qualifiedly immune, and Skoly’s constitutional claims were without merit.
Affirmed.
