Bied v. Cnty. of Rensselaer

• Decision Date: 30 March 2018
• Docket Number: 1:15-cv-1011 (TJM/DEP)
• Parties: MICHAELA BIED, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, WENDY A. MEEHAN f/k/a WENDY A. HUDY, ALEXANDER J. POPOVICS, HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, and AMANDA J. MILLER-KALBFIESH, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

MICHAELA BIED, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE,WENDY A. MEEHAN f/k/a WENDY A. HUDY,ALEXANDER J. POPOVICS,HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,and AMANDA J. MILLER-KALBFIESH, Defendants.

1:15-cv-1011 (TJM/DEP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 30, 2018

THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

The Amended Complaint alleges claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (false arrest and malicious prosecution); and New York State law (false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress). All claims arise from Defendants' alleged conduct while Plaintiff was a student at Hudson Valley Community College ("HVCC").

Defendants move for summary judgment seeking to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims, dkt., # 55, and to strike Plaintiff's expert witness's report and preclude him from testifying at trial. Dkt. # 62. Plaintiff opposes these motions. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's expert's report and precluded the expert from testifying at trial is denied.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

On a motion for summary judgment the Court must construe the properly disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007), and may grant summary judgment only where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see O'Hara v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 642 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2011). When deciding a summary judgment motion, "[t]he court resolves all ambiguities and draws all reasonable inferences against the moving party." Villante v. Vandyke, No. 9:04CV759 FJS DRH, 2008 WL 163596, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2008).

III. BACKGROUND

Unless indicated otherwise, the following are the relevant and material facts admitted in the parties' Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Statements of Material Facts ("SOMF"), or are supported by one party and not properly disputed by the other.¹ All facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

When Plaintiff was in high school at the Voorheesville Central School District, she received an Individualized Education Plan that provided for accommodations for a learning disability. Her accommodations included additional time to complete tests. On April 24,2013, Plaintiff submitted a Registration Form to HVCC's Learning Disabilities Services office. This form indicated that her disability was characterized as "developmental delays in speech development, cognitive functioning and motor skills," and her functional limitation as "learning disability that impacts the processing of information." Plaintiff's father testified that, to his knowledge, Plaintiff's cognitive impairment did not prevent her from understanding instructions although her "other diagnosed conditions" may cause her to take longer in processing information relative to instructions. Def. Ex. 5, p. 31.

The Voorheesville Central School District Confidential Psychological Report ("Psychological Report ") that was provided to HVCC as part of Plaintiff's application indicates: "At the college level, teachers feel Michaela will need extra time to complete assignments, assistance with note taking and help with time management skills. Both in the world of work and in college, teachers feel that Michaela will continue to need support with social skills including making eye contact, speaking clearly and navigating social situations." Pl. Ex. A., p. 3.² This report also indicates that in a telephone conversation with Plaintiff'smother, Mrs. Bied stated that she feels Plaintiff will ultimately be able to achieve a four-year college degree, but her "weaknesses include not knowing how to approach people and having difficulty making friends." Id. Mrs. Bied also stated that Plaintiff "might have difficulty self-advocating at the college level." Id.

The Psychological Report's Summary and Conclusion provides in pertinent part:

Michaela Bied, and 18-year, 10-month old, female has received special education services since preschool. Initially, she received services for delays in speech, motor and cognitive skills. In the primary grades, she exhibited delays in reading and writing skills and, in the fourth grade her classification was changed to Learning Disabled. Michaela also has a history of pragmatic communication and social skill weaknesses which have impacted her socially. . . . Michaela continues to be identified with the Learning Disability and has in IEP which includes a period of resource room support every day. Psycho-educational evaluation is being conducted at this time to provide updated information regarding Michaela's abilities and skills, and to make recommendations for support she will need as she transitions out of high school.

On the current cognitive testing using the WAIS-IV, Michaela earned a Full Scale IQ of 80 (9^th percentile). However, Michaela displayed some significant variability among subtest scores indicating that the Full Scale IQ is not a good representation of Michaela's abilities. Michaela displayed relative strengths in the area of long-term memory for factual information, working memory and some perceptual reasoning abilities. Weaknesses are seen in the areas of understanding of vocabulary, verbal associative reasoning ability and processing speed.

Achievement testing found Michaela's math skills to fall in the Average range and to be an area of personal strength. Reading and writing skills were in the Average to Low Average range on this assessment. Qualitatively, Michaela continues to have difficulties understanding inferential reading material, and per report of her teachers, may need additional tutoring to grasp new concepts. Although Michaela knows how to put sentences together and canwrite an essay, teachers report that she has difficulty analyzing and synthesizing information into her papers and will continue to need some assistance with this process. Michaela's slow processing speed impacts all academic areas. Her fluency for all academic skills is well below age expectancies.

Some significant delays were seen in Michaela's daily living skills in both home and school settings on the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System. Michaela's pragmatic communication skills, self-care skills and home living skills are reported to be significantly below age mates. Michaela has a tendency to avert eye contact, and exhibits difficulties initiating and maintaining conversations, and making friends. Additionally, her speech can continue to be difficult for others to understand at times which adds to her communication issues. Michaela also possesses a more limited interest in her appearance and grooming and comparison to age mates. All of these are issues that Michaela will continue to have to learn how to handle as she enters the adult world, especially the world of work.

In summary, Michaela continues to possess a language-based learning disability and processing disorder that impacts her reading and writing skills and her processing speed. Michaela also continues to exhibit some vestiges of her earlier speech impairment in her articulation and she possesses some difficulty with pragmatic social skills. Michaela will continue to need support services to be successful at the college level. She may also need some support as she enters the world of work.

Id. pp. 10-11.

On May 8, 2013, before beginning classes at HVCC, Plaintiff signed a form acknowledging that she was to "[m]ake an appointment with Learning Disabilities Services during the first week of class to get your accommodation letters. These letters are the official record of your accommodations. You must deliver them in person to each of your instructors." Def. Ex. 14 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff matriculated at HVCC in August of 2013. She enrolled in five courses in the fall 2013 semester, including Financial Accounting with Prof. Wendy Meehan (f/k/a Wendy Hudy). In the fall 2013 semester, Plaintiff received her accommodation letters, and, as is relevant here, delivered an accommodation letter to Prof. Meehan and obtainedaccommodations in the Financial Accounting course taught by Prof. Meehan.³ According to Deanne Martocci, Director for the Center for Access and Assistive Technology ("the CAAT") at HVCC, there is a requirement at HVCC that a person with a disability, in order to receive disability accommodations, submits a written accommodation form to each professor teaching each class each semester. Def. Ex. 13, pp.111-13. Ms. Martocci further testified that the requirement that a student personally deliver accommodation letters to each professor served two important functions - it required the students to be responsible self-advocates, and it offered them the opportunity to discuss their accommodations directly with course instructors and to decide whether they wished to be accommodated in particular courses. Id. pp. 113-14. Ms. Martocci explained that each student plays a role in the accommodation process at HVCC. She indicated that, as adults in the college setting, students are allowed to choose whether or not they want to use the accommodations they are provided each semester. Id. pp. 114, 121. Plaintiff challenges the existence of this policy because it is not contained in any written policy manual, and notes that Ms. Martocci testified when questioned whether a student would be denied a disability accommodation if the student failed to provide the written accommodation letter to a professor during a semester:

So faculty has the ability, at any point, to work with any student and

...