542 F. App'x 21
2d Cir.2013Background
- Linda Grant sued County of Erie and Erie County Youth Detention Services under the ADA, NYHRL, and ADEA, alleging disability and age discrimination and retaliation.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Central factual dispute concerned medical reports: Dr. Bergeron’s report stated Grant could return to regular work and could defend herself but questioned whether returning was "appropriate" given age/medical history.
- The district court treated Dr. Bergeron’s caution as contradicting Grant’s allegation that a fourth doctor cleared her to return, and concluded Grant was not qualified to perform essential job functions.
- The district court also dismissed Grant’s NY state law claims for failure to file a notice of claim, raising that issue sua sponte.
- The district court dismissed Grant’s retaliation claim for failure to plead a causal connection between protected activity and adverse action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges Grant was qualified to perform essential job functions (ADA/ADEA/NYHRL) | Grant alleged a fourth doctor cleared her to return to full duty | County relied on Dr. Bergeron’s caution that returning might be inappropriate to show she was not qualified | Vacated dismissal on this ground: Dr. Bergeron said Grant could perform essential functions, so dismissal premature | |
| Whether state-law claims properly dismissed for failure to file/serve notice of claim | Grant did not have notice and opportunity to be heard on this defense | County did not raise inadequate notice of claim in its briefs; district court raised it sua sponte | Vacated dismissal of NYHRL claims because district court erred by resolving the issue sua sponte without notice/opportunity to be heard | |
| Whether retaliation claim sufficiently pleaded (causal link) | Grant argued EEOC charge and related events support retaliation | County argued no causal connection; adverse action preceded EEOC filing | Affirmed dismissal: no plausible causal connection—adverse action occurred before EEOC charge | |
| Standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissal and use of incorporated documents | Grant relied on complaint allegations and attached medical reports | County relied on the same documents to show lack of qualification | Court applied de novo review and incorporated documents rule; used reports but found conflict resolved in Grant’s favor on qualification issue | Affirmed standard; applied incorporated-document principles but found facts here required remand |
Key Cases Cited
- ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir.) (exception where conclusory allegations contradicted by specific allegations)
- Salahuddin v. Jones, 992 F.2d 447 (2d Cir.) (same)
- Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151 (2d Cir.) (qualification to perform essential job functions requirement)
- Thomas v. Scully, 943 F.2d 259 (2d Cir.) (district court may dismiss sua sponte only with notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (same)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir.) (causation standard for retaliation claims)
- Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (documents incorporated into complaint for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6))
- Int'l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.) (same)
For these reasons the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim, and vacated and remanded the portions of the district court’s judgment dismissing the discrimination claims for lack of qualification and dismissing the NY state-law claims for inadequate notice of claim.