592 F. App'x 282
5th Cir.2014Background
- Kamps, a law school applicant over 50, sues Baylor University under the ADA alleging age discrimination, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation.
- Kamps was wait-listed for Fall 2010 (offered Summer 2010 or Spring 2011) and declined those offers; he later was wait-listed for Fall 2011 (offered Spring 2012) and declined, without attending Baylor.
- Kamps alleges he did not receive the Nance Scholarship in 2011 due to age and faced retaliation after a formal complaint leading to the Fall 2012 denial.
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss; the court of appeals reviews de novo under a Rule 12(b)(6) standard for dismissal.
- Key procedural issue: pre-filing administrative exhaustion; plaintiff did not file a DOE complaint within 180 days of discovering the 2010 actions.
- The court addresses whether the ADA permits disparate impact or retaliation claims and whether GPA-based admissions constitute unlawful discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of remedies for 2010 claims | Kamps seeks relief for 2010 decisions under ADA, alleging discrimination. | DOE exhaustion not satisfied; untimely under 34 C.F.R. § 110.31(a). | Exhaustion not met; claims barred. |
| Intentional discrimination for 2011 admission | GPA and age-related biases show discrimination against older applicants. | No facts showing Baylor used GPA to discriminate against older applicants; admitted Spring 2012. | Claims fail; no age-based discriminatory action shown. |
| Disparate impact under the ADA | DOE regulations prohibit policies with disparate impact against age. | ADA has no disparate-impact language; limitations apply only to intentional discrimination; no private right to enforce disparate-impact regulations. | Disparate-impact claims cannot be brought under the ADA. |
| Retaliation under the ADA | Adverse action following complaint constitutes retaliation. | Retaliation regulations not enforceable via private action under the ADA; statute only prohibits intentional discrimination. | Retaliation claim dismissed. |
| Dismissal with prejudice | Dismissal without opportunity to amend may be improper. | Amendment would be futile; claims fail on exhaustion, lack of age-based discrimination, and Iqbal/Twombly standards. | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (pre-filing exhaustion mandatory)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings must contain more than speculative allegations)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (private right to enforce regulations; disparate impact interpretation)
- Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004) (private right to enforce regulation depends on statutory provisions)
- Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 571 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2009) (regulations enforcing statutory provisions must map to statute)
- Warren v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 759 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)