Roggenbach v. Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine
7 F. Supp. 3d 338
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Michael Roggenbach, an HIV-positive, American-born man of German origin, attended Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine and began clinical rotations in July 2010.
- In late Sept. 2010 Plaintiff missed two rotation days at St. John’s; he later admitted fabricating an email to justify the absences and signed a counseling form acknowledging unapproved leave.
- A former landlord sent letters to Touro and St. John’s alleging theft/vandalism and (in a later-mailed letter) mentioning Plaintiff’s HIV status; the second letter arrived after the Sept. absences.
- Touro conducted an informal hearing, required evaluation by the Committee for Physician Health, held a formal hearing where Plaintiff admitted dishonesty, and ultimately dismissed him for code-of-conduct violations (fabrication, false information, neglect of duties, unbecoming behavior).
- Plaintiff filed administrative complaints (NYSDHR, OCR, Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation) in March 2011 and then commenced this lawsuit alleging discrimination and retaliation under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Title VI, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims.
Issues
| Issue | Roggenbach's Argument | Touro/Cammarata's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination (ADA/RHA) — was Plaintiff disabled and disciplined because of HIV or perceived disability? | HIV status (and alleged mental impairment) made him disabled or perceived as disabled; discipline was due to disability. | No evidence Defendants knew of HIV before discipline; Plaintiff didn’t show major-life limitation or that he was treated due to disability. | Court: Plaintiff may be disabled per ADAAA as to HIV, but no evidence Defendants knew status before discipline; prima facie not established; judgment for defendants. |
| Retaliation (ADA/RHA) — did protected complaints cause adverse action? | Post-complaint proceedings/timing show retaliation. | Disciplinary process began before Plaintiff’s administrative complaints; no causation. | Court: Protected activity occurred after discipline began; no causal connection; retaliation claim fails. |
| National origin discrimination (Title VI) — was discipline motivated by Plaintiff’s German origin? | Comments ("brusque, German manner" and other alleged remarks) show bias and motive. | Remarks were isolated / not severe or pervasive; Plaintiff did not notify school; no evidence discrimination motivated discipline. | Court: Isolated/offensive remarks insufficient; no deliberate-indifference or motivating factor; Title VI claim fails. |
| State/city law claims (NYSHRL/NYCHRL) — should court decide remaining claims? | Plaintiff sought relief under NYSHRL and NYCHRL as well. | Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims; argued merits as to federal law. | Court: Dismissed federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state/city claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and construing evidence for nonmovant)
- Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary judgment may be appropriate in discrimination cases)
- Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp., 542 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 2008) (elements of a Title III ADA claim)
- Doe v. New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 1981) (judicial deference to academic judgments and institutions)
- Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2012) (deliberate indifference standard for harassment in education)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (deference to academic institutions’ student evaluations)