103 F.4th 946
2d Cir.2024Background
- Nicole Costin, who has a substance-abuse disorder treated with Subutex, gave birth at Glens Falls Hospital and alleged she was treated discriminatorily because of her disability.
- Costin experienced non-consensual drug testing, delayed pain relief and labor induction against her wishes, and was reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) based on a false-positive drug test.
- The hospital allegedly had blanket policies of reporting all Subutex users to CPS and drug testing based on disability-related stereotypes.
- Costin brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and state law.
- The district court dismissed her federal claims, holding she failed to plausibly allege disability-based discrimination, and declined to hear the state claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding certain claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Injunctive Relief | Costin was likely to return to the hospital, facing risk of similar harm. | Costin had no plausible likelihood of future harm; she wouldn't necessarily return. | Costin had standing; substantial probability of return. |
| ADA/RA Discrimination Standard | Hospital policies motivated by stereotypes, not legitimate medical reasons, violate ADA/RA. | Medical decisions (pain relief, labor) are not actionable if based on medical judgment, even if flawed. | Claims based on medical decisions (epidural, discharge delays, etc.) dismissed as not actionable under ADA/RA. |
| Blanket Reporting/Drug Testing Policies | Reporting all Subutex users and drug testing based on disability are discriminatory, not medically necessary. | Policies are part of hospital procedure and may be required by law; not actionable discrimination. | Dismissal vacated for ADA/RA claims based on blanket CPS reporting and drug testing—plausible claims of discrimination. |
| State Law Claims Jurisdiction | Court should retain state claims if some federal claims survive. | No federal jurisdiction if all federal claims are dismissed. | Declined supplemental jurisdiction reversed to extent federal claims survive; state claims reinstated on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019) (sets forth de novo review standard for motion to dismiss)
- Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2022) (standing for injunctive relief under ADA—future injury risk)
- McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier, 752 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (distinguishes medical judgment from actionable discrimination in disability law)
- Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (elements for ADA/RA claims)
- Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (ADA violation may arise from stereotypical views of disability)