Aidan A. Smith v. Michael Hogan
794 F.3d 249
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Aidan Smith, a student dining employee at the University of Connecticut, left a food-service shift on Sept. 14, 2009 because he felt ill (he believed he had bronchitis) and was fired for leaving without permission, an immediately terminable offense under university rules.
- Smith exhausted internal grievance procedures, pursued CT FOI requests (his father, an attorney, participated), and filed claims with CHRO and the EEOC; CHRO issued a Merit Assessment Review and EEOC issued a Right-to-Sue.
- Smith sued in federal court alleging: discriminatory discharge under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (based on bronchitis and, later argued, anxiety), a First Amendment claim on behalf of his father against a CTFOI hearing officer for quashing subpoenas, and a substantive due process claim for being deprived of the right to comply with state health codes.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; Smith’s post-judgment motion to amend was denied.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed: it held that an affidavit attached as an exhibit to Smith’s complaint was not a "written instrument" under Rule 10(c) and thus could not be used to supply an unpled disability theory; Smith lacked standing to assert his father's First Amendment claim; and compliance with health codes is not a fundamental liberty interest for substantive due process purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations in an affidavit attached to the complaint may be considered part of the pleading under Rule 10(c) to support an ADA/Rehab Act claim | Smith argued the attached affidavit described anxiety-related facts that show a qualifying disability and discrimination | Defendants argued the affidavit is not a Rule 10(c) "written instrument" and cannot supply an unpled legal theory | The court held the affidavit is not a "written instrument" under Rule 10(c); it cannot be treated as part of the complaint to plead a new disability theory; ADA/Rehab claims dismissed |
| Whether bronchitis (as pled) qualifies as a disability under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act | Smith initially relied on bronchitis as the reason for leaving work | Defendants contended bronchitis is not a qualifying disability | The court affirmed that bronchitis is not a qualifying disability and Smith conceded as much; claim fails |
| Whether Smith has standing to bring a First Amendment claim on behalf of his father challenging the FOI hearing officer's quashal of subpoenas | Smith asserted potential conflict between his father's interests and his own and alternatively sought to bring a facial overbreadth challenge | Defendants argued Smith lacked a close-relationship/barrier showing and raised no facial overbroad challenge | The court held Smith lacked third-party standing and dismissed the First Amendment claim |
| Whether there is a substantive due process right to comply with state health codes | Smith argued he was deprived of a liberty interest in complying with health laws | Defendants argued such an interest is not a fundamental right protected by substantive due process | The court held compliance with health codes is not a fundamental liberty interest; substantive due process claim dismissed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying post-judgment leave to amend | Smith sought leave to replead after judgment to add theories | Defendants relied on finality and that the motion repeated prior arguments | The court affirmed denial: post-judgment amendment is improper absent vacatur of judgment and amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Babylon v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 699 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (review of jurisdictional dismissals)
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (ADA discrimination pleading requirements)
- Doe v. Pfrommer, 148 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1998) (Rehabilitation Act standards)
- Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331 (3d Cir. 1989) (affidavits are not Rule 10(c) written instruments)
- Northern Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 1998) (contrasting view that affidavits may be treated as Rule 10(c) exhibits)
- Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1991) (documents plaintiffs relied on may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- Int'l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 1995) (integral document doctrine for motion-to-dismiss consideration)
- Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (fundamental-rights framework for substantive due process)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (defining fundamental rights under substantive due process)