510 F. App'x 223
4th Cir.2013Background
- Jeandron, blind, sues UMCP and related officials for ADA, Rehabilitation Act, breach of contract, and tortious conspiracy.
- settlement in 2007 provided $250,000 for accommodations but required adherence to UM system rules and progress requirements.
- Post-settlement, Jeandron continued in the CCJS Ph.D. program; fall 2008 registration was blocked by holds; termination letters were sent in 2007-2008.
- January 8, 2008 termination letter was received at Jeandron’s address; additional notices followed in February 2008.
- Jeandron filed suit on September 7, 2011, raising disability discrimination and contract-based claims.
- District court granted dismissal/summary judgment, holding claims time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations and considering university policies and notices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims are timely. | Jeandron contends notices were not received; accrual did not occur until September 2008. | Letters were sent and received; accrual occurred earlier under notices and ongoing enrollment requirements. | Claims barred; accrual occurred by early 2008. |
| Whether continuous enrollment/progress requirements affect accrual. | District court relied on web-policy; continuous enrollment not properly in record. | Policy existed; failure to register showed termination and notice supports accrual. | District court properly considered policy; no abuse in reliance on it. |
| Whether receipt of termination letters could affect the statute of limitations determination. | Receipt disputed; genuine issues of fact about notice exist. | Even with receipt disputes, reasonable inquiry would show termination; not delaying accrual. | Conclusion supported by reasonable-inquiry basis; receipt disputes did not alter timeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard and accrual analysis guidance)
- Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009) (standing on summary judgment and evidentiary standards)
- A Soc’y Without A Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2011) (borrowed statute of limitations for federal claims)
- Martin v. Southwestern Virginia Gas Co., 135 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 1998) (discrimination claim accrual timing)
- Poffenberger v. Risser, 431 A.2d 677 (Md. 1981) (discovery rule for tort claims)
- Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 550 A.2d 1155 (Md. 1988) (inquiry notice concept for discovery rule timing)
- Hartnett v. Schering Corp., 2 F.3d 90 (4th Cir. 1993) (application of discovery rule to general civil actions)
- Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda, 43 A.3d 1029 (Md. 2012) (application of three-year statute of limitations)