Colleen Dolac v. County of Erie
20-2044
| 2d Cir. | Nov 12, 2021Background
- Colleen Dolac, a registered nurse employed by the Erie County Sheriff’s Department, was terminated and sued alleging ADA failure-to-accommodate, ADA associational discrimination, ADA retaliation, and ADEA age discrimination. The district court dismissed her complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend as futile.
- Dolac conceded her original complaint was legally deficient and appealed only the district court’s denial of leave to amend, arguing futility was wrongly found.
- Her proposed amendments relied on three faxed nurse-practitioner notes stating “off work DBL” / “continue DBL” / “continue disability,” assertions that she suffered extreme stress and could not communicate, and allegations that defendants terminated her to avoid health insurance and sick-leave costs related to her terminally ill husband.
- The district court applied Rule 15(a), found the proposed factual additions did not cure pleading defects (no alleged notice of a disability, no request for accommodation, conclusory associational allegations, and no but-for age causation), and denied leave to amend.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s futility determination (legal question) and affirmed the dismissal and denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for denial of leave to amend | Dolac: district court applied wrong standard to deny leave | Erie: district court properly applied Rule 15(a) and found futility | Court: District court used Rule 15(a); denial for futility was proper |
| ADA failure-to-accommodate | Dolac: three faxed notes suffice as notice/request for accommodation | Erie: notes do not identify a disability or request accommodation; no interactive process triggered | Court: Notes insufficient to allege disability, notice, or request; claim fails |
| ADA associational discrimination (expense theory) | Dolac: termination motivated by cost of husband’s metastatic-cancer care | Erie: allegations are conclusory; no plausible showing defendants knew costs or were motivated by them | Court: Allegations are conclusory and do not plausibly show defendants knew or were motivated by husband’s medical expenses |
| ADEA age discrimination | Dolac: older nurses (including her) were replaced by younger hires, implying age bias | Erie: plaintiff must plead but-for causation; mere replacement is insufficient | Court: Pleading fails to plausibly allege but-for causation; replacement alone is inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mortimer Off Shore Servs., Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 615 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2010) (futility is a valid reason to deny leave to amend; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Acito v. IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1995) (additional information that does not cure a complaint supports denial of leave to amend)
- Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2015) (de novo review of futility determinations grounded in legal interpretation)
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements of an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Costabile v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 951 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2020) (plaintiff must allege sufficient information to show employer knew or should have known of a disability to trigger interactive process)
- Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016) (elements required for an ADA associational-discrimination claim)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of an ADA retaliation claim)
- Lively v. WAFRA Inv. Advisory Grp. Inc., 6 F.4th 293 (2d Cir. 2021) (ADEA requires but-for causation; plaintiff must plausibly plead but-for causation at pleading stage)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for causation standard applies under the ADEA)
- Fagan v. N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp., 186 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 1999) (replacement of an older worker by a younger worker does not by itself prove unlawful discrimination)