18 F. Supp. 3d 320
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Victoria Marino, a former Hunter College master's student with documented physical and cognitive disabilities, received accommodations but was graded "C" (failing) in a Student Teaching Seminar after field supervisor Roberts gave failing observation grades while the classroom teacher gave positive evaluations.
- Marino lost a disability scholarship and alleges the failing grade prevented her from obtaining her M.A. and teacher certification; she appealed through Hunter College committees but the grade was not changed (she was offered to repeat the seminar).
- Plaintiff sued CUNY, Hunter College, the Hunter College Senate, and five college officials in their official capacities under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, Title II of the ADA, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking grade change, reinstatement, damages, and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Eleventh Amendment immunity) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
- District Court held: CUNY (and its colleges) are arms of the state and immune from direct constitutional claims and from monetary damages under § 1983 and ADA in many respects; New York waived immunity for § 504 claims via acceptance of federal funds; Ex parte Young permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials; plaintiff failed to state plausible Title II, § 504 disparate-treatment, § 1983 (due process and equal protection), and other federal claims, so the complaint was dismissed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUNY is immune from direct constitutional and ADA claims under the Eleventh Amendment | Marino contends CUNY violated Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments and ADA/§504 | CUNY is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; ADA abrogation not fully effective for all claims | CUNY is immune from direct constitutional claims; ADA abrogation analysis reserved because plaintiff failed to state underlying Fourteenth Amendment claim |
| Whether New York/CUNY waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for Rehabilitation Act (§504) claims | Marino asserts §504 claim for discriminatory grading | Defendants assert Eleventh Amendment bars suits; waiver issue contested | Court found New York knowingly waived immunity by accepting federal funds post-Garcia; §504 claim not barred by Eleventh Amendment (survivability only on waiver grounds) |
| Whether plaintiff may obtain prospective injunctive relief against individual officials (Ex parte Young) | Marino seeks grade change and ability to continue studies | Defendants argue Eleventh Amendment bars suit against officials in official capacity | Ex parte Young permits suits for prospective injunctive relief; official-capacity injunctive claims survive Eleventh Amendment challenge |
| Whether plaintiff stated plausible disparate-treatment ADA/§504 and §1983 claims (due process/equal protection) | Marino alleges animus due to disability caused failing grade and ratification by officials; claims of procedural and substantive due process and class-of-one equal protection | Defendants argue pleadings are conclusory, lack nexus between comments and grades, and fail to plead similarly situated comparators or constitutionally inadequate process | Court held pleadings insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal: procedural due process adequate (college provided appeals), substantive due process not implicated, equal protection not pleaded with required high similarity, ADA/§504 disparate-treatment allegations too conclusory — therefore claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., 570 F.3d 471 (2d Cir.) (standard for pleading assumptions at motion to dismiss)
- Clissuras v. City Univ. of New York, 359 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.) (CUNY and senior colleges are arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (Sup. Ct.) (scope of Title II abrogation and test for overlap with Fourteenth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Sup. Ct.) (requirements for congressional abrogation under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Sup. Ct.) (Eleventh Amendment immunity principles)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (Sup. Ct.) (limits of relief against state officials; Eleventh Amendment context)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (Sup. Ct.) (permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (pleading standards requiring more than conclusory allegations)
- Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (Sup. Ct.) (judicial deference to academic decisions in due process context)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (Sup. Ct.) (class-of-one equal protection framework)