655 F. App'x 25
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Keri, Eugene, and Julianne Spring sued after their 17-year-old son Gregory, who had documented motor and vocal tics and learning/communication difficulties, died by suicide.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (disability), Section 1983 (substantive due process, equal protection, First Amendment), Monell, retaliation, New York constitutional and statutory provisions, and common law.
- The District Court dismissed all federal claims and denied leave to amend the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over some state-law claims.
- Plaintiffs sought to amend to add specific factual allegations about Gregory’s limitations (e.g., involuntary tics, repetitive utterances, impairment in speaking, learning, concentrating, communicating).
- The Second Circuit reviewed denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion and assessed sufficiency of pleading for each claim under federal pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend ADA/Rehab Act claims | Proposed complaint alleges specific, functional limitations (speaking, learning, concentrating, communicating) and a record of disabilities—meets ADAAA standard | Proposed amendments still fail to allege a substantial limitation on major life activities | Vacated denial of leave to amend; proposed allegations plausibly plead qualifying disability under ADAAA |
| Substantive due process (state-created danger/deliberate indifference) | Defendants’ conduct created danger and showed deliberate indifference to obvious risk of suicide | Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show any defendant had actual knowledge and willful disregard of an obvious excessive risk | Affirmed dismissal: allegations insufficient to plausibly show deliberate indifference or conscience-shocking conduct |
| Equal protection (disparate treatment / deliberate indifference to harassment) | Gregory was treated differently due to disability; school was deliberately indifferent to harassment | Complaint lacks allegations comparing treatment of similarly situated non-disabled students and lacks facts showing clearly unreasonable response to known harassment | Affirmed dismissal: no plausible disparate-treatment claim; harassment-response allegations insufficient for deliberate indifference standard |
| Remaining claims (retaliation, Monell, state constitutional, state statutory/common law) | Various factual and legal arguments supporting liability and jurisdiction | District Court’s grounds for dismissal and decline of supplemental jurisdiction | Affirmed dismissal of federal retaliation/Monell/state constitutional claims; vacated and remanded state statutory/common-law matters for the district court to reconsider supplemental jurisdiction in light of ADA/Rehab Act remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208 (2d Cir.) (procedures and standard for review of denial of leave to amend)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (rule favoring leave to amend barring certain exceptions)
- Parada v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A., 753 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.) (application of ADA Amendments Act relaxed substantial-limitation standard)
- Okin v. Vill. of Cornwall-on-Hudson Police Dep’t, 577 F.3d 415 (2d Cir.) (state-created danger/substantive due process framework)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (deliberate indifference and conscience-shocking standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (actual knowledge and disregard requirement for deliberate indifference)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requiring more than allegations merely consistent with liability)
- Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.) (disparate treatment requires intentional discrimination against similarly situated individuals)
- Gant ex rel. Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.) (standard for deliberate indifference to peer harassment in schools)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (harassment liability standard for schools)