Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.
374 F. Supp. 3d 276
W.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff (formerly a high‑school student) with POTS sought a fifth year of high‑school basketball under New York's four‑year "Duration of Competition" rule and alleged Defendants denied a reasonable accommodation under Title II (ADA) and Section 504.
- Administrative appeals were pursued; Plaintiff alleges his requests for an ADA accommodation were never addressed by Section IV or the Commissioner.
- Plaintiff sued the Commissioner (in her official capacity), NYSPHSAA, and Section IV seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief; the operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint.
- The Commissioner moved to dismiss: arguing (1) injunctive/declaratory claims are moot by graduation/season end; (2) absolute quasi‑judicial and legislative immunity bars claims; (3) ADA money damages barred by sovereign immunity; and (4) Section 504 damages not sufficiently pleaded (no intentional discrimination).
- The Court dismissed Plaintiff's injunctive/declaratory relief as moot and the ADA money‑damages claim against the Commissioner (by Plaintiff's concession), but denied dismissal on quasi‑judicial and legislative immunity grounds and held Section 504 monetary claim survived facial attack for deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of injunctive and declaratory relief | Graduation and season end do not moot claims because relief may benefit future students and the issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review." | Season ended and Plaintiff graduated, so no live controversy; injunctive/declaratory relief is moot. | Claims for injunctive and declaratory relief dismissed as moot. |
| Applicability of absolute quasi‑judicial immunity | Commissioner did not rule on the accommodation request; suit challenges failure to provide reasonable modification, not the merits of an appeal decision. | Commissioner asserts her administrative appeal decision‑making is quasi‑judicial and thus entitled to absolute immunity. | Commissioner failed to carry burden; absolute quasi‑judicial immunity not shown at motion stage. |
| Applicability of absolute legislative immunity | Plaintiff challenges failure to provide individualized accommodation, not the rule itself. | Commissioner contends immunity for actions tied to promulgation/enforcement of eligibility rules. | Legislative immunity not shown; conduct alleged is administrative/individualized and law‑of‑the‑case supports denying immunity at this stage. |
| Monetary damages under ADA and Section 504 | Sought damages under ADA and Section 504 for denial of accommodation; alleged deliberate indifference to rights. | ADA damages barred by state sovereign immunity; Section 504 damages insufficiently pleaded (no intentional violation). | Plaintiff conceded ADA damages against the state Commissioner; ADA monetary claim dismissed as to Commissioner. Section 504 damages survive: plaintiff plausibly alleged deliberate indifference. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity to the extent it vindicates Fourteenth Amendment rights)
- Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr., 280 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2001) (limited approach to Title II abrogation pre‑Georgia)
- Bogan v. Scott‑Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (functional test for absolute legislative immunity)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (limits of judicial immunity: nonjudicial acts and absence of jurisdiction exceptions)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (whether an act is judicial depends on function and parties' expectations)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (policy rationale for judicial immunity to avoid chilling judicial decision‑making)
- Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009) (Section 504 monetary relief requires intentional discrimination/deliberate indifference)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Browning Debenture Holders' Comm. v. Dasa Corp., 524 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1975) (declaratory relief inappropriate where it would be mere advisory opinion)