Cook v. City of Philadelphia, 94 F. Supp. 3d 640

Background

Michael Cook applied twice for Philadelphia police officer; after second application (April–May 2013) he received a conditional offer contingent on medical/psych testing.
Cook passed initial exams (including MMPI and polygraph); two days after a psychological exam the City rescinded the conditional offer citing the psychological exam results.
Cook requested a copy of the psychological exam and its findings; the City refused to provide them.
Cook sued under the Rehabilitation Act (RA) and Title II of the ADA alleging the City "regarded him as" having a psychological disability and therefore discriminated in hiring.
The City moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Cook failed to plead disability or qualification and that his ADA claim must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The court denied dismissal of the RA "regarded as" claim but dismissed the Title II ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (finding Title II inapplicable to employment claims).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cook adequately alleged a "regarded as" disability under the RA/ADA	Cook alleged the City withdrew a conditional offer based on perceived psychological impairment after testing	City argued mere withdrawal does not prove it regarded Cook as disabled and that any impairment could be transitory/minor	Denied dismissal — pleadings suffice to permit RA "regarded as" claim to proceed to discovery
Whether Cook is otherwise qualified for the position	Cook points to his passing scores and completion of required tests and conditional offer	City contends Cook cannot show he was qualified as a police officer	Court: qualification dispute is factual and premature on 12(b)(6); resolve at summary judgment
Whether Title II of the ADA can be used to pursue employment-discrimination claims to avoid Title I exhaustion	Cook urged Title II applies to employment claims, so no administrative exhaustion required	City argued employment claims fall under Title I, which incorporates Title VII administrative exhaustion	Court: Title II does not apply to employment discrimination here; ADA Title I governs and Cook failed to exhaust, so ADA Title II claim dismissed
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required for Cook's ADA claim	Cook argued Title II (no exhaustion) or that exhaustion was unnecessary	City argued Title I applies and exhaustion under Title VII procedures is required	Held: exhaustion required for Title I employment claims; Cook did not exhaust, so ADA claim dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Freed v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 201 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000) (Section 504/RA plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies against private recipients of federal funds)
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (RA standards coextensive with ADA employment standards)
Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 1996) (employer's perceptions are central in "regarded as" analysis)
Mary Jo C. v. New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) (Title II does not cover employment-discrimination claims)
Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013) (Title II inapplicable to employment claims)
Zimmerman v. Oregon Dep’t of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999) (employment claims belong under Title I)
Elwell v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 693 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2012) (Title II does not reach employment discrimination)
Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998) (terms and conditions of employment are governed by Title I, not other ADA titles)
Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Med. Ctr., 154 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (Congress intended employment discrimination to be regulated under Title I)