931 F.3d 59
2d Cir.2019Background
- Purcell, a former NYIT medical student, alleges discrimination based on homosexuality and a mental-health disability relating to events in 2010–11 (second year) and 2013–14 (fourth year) at NYIT.
- 2010–11 allegations: anxiety causing missed exam, repeated meetings with deans involving intrusive psychiatric/medical questions, requests for medical records, and homophobic conduct/comments by staff and distribution of class materials referencing homosexuality.
- 2013–14 allegations: failure of three clinical clerkships, Student Discipline Board suspension/dismissal, NYIT conditioned reinstatement on psychiatric evaluation, derogatory remarks during reinstatement proceedings, denial of reinstatement and denial of appeal in April 2014.
- Purcell sued under the ADA, Title IX, and NYSHRL in state court in May 2016; NYIT removed the case to federal court. The district court dismissed the 2013–14 claims as time‑barred by New York Article 78’s four‑month rule and later dismissed the 2010–11 claims as untimely (rejecting continuing-violation tolling).
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the 2010–11 claims but held that the 2013–14 ADA and Title IX claims were properly brought in federal court and are governed by a three‑year statute of limitations, vacated dismissal of those claims, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations for ADA and Title IX claims arising from university disciplinary/academic decisions | Purcell argued federal claims could proceed in federal court under an appropriate limitations period (implied three years) | NYIT argued such claims must be brought via NY Article 78 in state court within Article 78’s four‑month limitations period | Court held Article 78’s four‑month limit does not govern federal ADA/Title IX claims; three‑year limitations period applies and Purcell’s 2013–14 claims are timely |
| Whether Article 78 is the exclusive remedy for federal antidiscrimination claims against private NY universities | Purcell: federal statutes supply standards and federal courts have jurisdiction; state funneling cannot nullify federal rights | NYIT: New York policy defers to Article 78 for university decisions; thus funneling should apply | Court held New York cannot nullify federal causes of action; federal claims may be adjudicated in federal court |
| Whether the continuing violation doctrine tolls the statute for 2010–11 claims | Purcell argued ongoing hostile-environment/continuing violation connecting 2010–11 and 2013–14 incidents | NYIT argued the incidents are discrete, separated by nearly two years, and lack overlapping actors/policy to show continuity | Court held continuing-violation doctrine does not apply; 2010–11 claims untimely |
| Whether dismissal of federal claims in favor of state Article 78 was supported by precedent (procedural due process/§1983 analogy) | Purcell distinguished due-process §1983 cases and argued ADA/Title IX are different | NYIT relied on cases holding Article 78 adequate for post‑deprivation process | Court distinguished §1983 precedent (where Article 78 can supply due process) and reaffirmed that federal antidiscrimination statutes are not displaced by state remedial schemes |
Key Cases Cited
- Curto v. Edmundson, 392 F.3d 502 (2d Cir.) (Title IX claims borrow state personal-injury limitations period)
- Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009) (state law cannot nullify federal rights by barring federal claims)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004) (framework for borrowing state statute of limitations for federal causes of action)
- McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 505 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (private postgraduate schools are places of public accommodation under ADA)
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (explaining the continuing-violation doctrine in the academic context)