Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement System et ano.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2013
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Mary Jo C. was a librarian terminated for behavior associated with chronic mental illness.
- She would have been eligible for NYS disability retirement if she had filed within three months, but she missed the deadline due to illness.
- Library reportedly refused to file on her behalf or reclassify termination as a leave of absence to extend deadlines.
- Plaintiff sued NYSLRS and the Library in federal court, alleging Title II ADA violations and seeking injunctive relief and fees.
- District court dismissed, holding Title II does not require waivers of state-law deadlines or apply to employment; alternatives remained unexhausted.
- Court on appeal vacated dismissal as to Title II claim against NYSLRS (remand for amendment and Ex parte Young), affirmed as to Title II against the Library, and vacated/abated related matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II requires waivers of state deadlines as reasonable modifications | Mary Jo C. seeks a waiver as a reasonable modification under Title II. | Waiving a state filing deadline is an essential eligibility requirement; modification cannot override state law. | Waiver may be a reasonable modification; remand to assess facts |
| Whether Title II applies to employment discrimination by public employers | Title II can address employment discrimination by public entities. | Title II does not apply to employment; Title I governs employment discrimination. | Title II does not apply to employment claims; Library claim affirmed, NYSLRS claim remanded |
| Whether Title II's abrogation of sovereign immunity is properly invoked | Ex parte Young exception may permit injunctive relief against state officials. | Sovereign immunity considerations complicate Title II abrogation; disputes avoided for now. | Court remands to allow amendment to pursue Ex parte Young under district court supervision |
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing disability-eligibility pleading under Title II | Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to plead disability and eligibility. | Plaintiff failed to plead disability with plausibility and other grounds supported dismissal. | Remand to permit amendment if pursued; district court’s denial of amendment not final |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (three-step Georgia framework for abrogation of state immunity)
- Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003) (treats 'qualified' and 'essential eligibility' concepts under Title II)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (fundamental alteration test for reasonable modification under Title III)
- Hargrave v. Vermont Fire Dep't, 340 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2003) (reasonable modifications to policies; preemption context under Title II)
- Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1997) (discussed scope of 'discrimination' and treatment of Title II)
- Zimmerman v. Oregon Dep't of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999) (statutory interpretation of Title II employment issue; agency deference limits)
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Title II scope and sovereign immunity context in broader ADA analysis)
- Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) (case-specific reasonable modifications vs. fundamental alteration analysis)
- Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (preemption framework in federal-state law conflicts)
- Levitin v. PaineWebber, Inc., 159 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (irreconcilable conflict concept in preemption analysis)