Cain v. Mercy Coll.
| Decision Date | 20 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-2262 (LLS) |
| Parties | ILEEN CAIN, Plaintiff, v. MERCY COLLEGE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
ORDER TO AMEND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796; the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688; the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin Code §§ 8-101-131; and "New York Civil Rights Law."1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against her due to her race, sex, and disability. By order dated June 23, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order.
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeksmonetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the "special solicitude" in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits - to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief "that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action," which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible - not merely possible - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.
Plaintiff Ileen Cain ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Defendant Mercy College ("Defendant"), where she is an undergraduate student on their Harlem campus. (ECF No. 2, at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Mercy College discriminated against and was biased towards her because "she is an African-American woman, with a diagnosed, disability Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)." (Id. at 5.)
The following allegations are taken from the complaint: On October 4th,2 Plaintiff met with Nick Canzanos, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, and Rajesh Kumar, Director of Student Success, at Defendant's Dobbs Ferry campus "to discuss Plaintiff's cyberstalking / stalking allegations." (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff told them that students, and a staff member, Crystal Rodwell, "verbally assaulted" Plaintiff in her class, in the hallway, and to her face. (Id.) These verbal assaults were repeated, and they "refer[red] to Plaintiff as mock it mock her keep kooking her Kook her." (Id.) The assaults were also "loud and persistent and meant to disturb and distress Plaintiff." (Id.)
During the meeting, Plaintiff notified Canzanos and Kumar that "she receives SSD because she was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), due to the murder of her son in 2005." (Id.) Plaintiff wanted to work with Canzanos to "substantiate [the] allegations . . . taking place on and off [Mercy College's] Harlem site and Plaintiff would like the perpetrators, orchestrators, organizers brought to justice." (Id.) Canzanos stated that "cyberstalking / stalking in the past have been substantiated, on [Mercy College] campuses but it was amongst [Mercy College] students." (Id.) Plaintiff responded that she too was a student at Mercy College. (Id.)
After the meeting, an unidentified individual from Mercy College called Plaintiff's classmates with questions that left them "rattled." (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff's classmates also informed her of the phone calls, which left her distressed. (Id.) For the next two months, students "openly discussed" the questions, with some stating "they were surprised [Mercy College] 'did that.'" (Id.)
When Plaintiff's classmates in her Introduction to Communication class discussed the phone calls, the professor "was resentful, sucked her teeth and repeated 'somebody said something' 'somebody said something.'" (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff expressed her distress to the professor and said she "did not want to do her oral presentation in front of the class." (Id.) She also informed the professor that she had spoken to Canzanos about the stalking allegations. (Id.) Plaintiff emailed Canzanos, "informing him fellow students shared the series of telephoned questions they received," but he never responded. (Id.) The Introduction to Communications professor said she understood and "did not at any time indicate to Plaintiff her final grade would suffer or that she would factor the oral presentation into her final grade" nor did she call on Plaintiff to present. (Id.) Plaintiff turned in "all papers relevant for her Intro to Communications class." (Id.) The professor later refused to let Plaintiff participate in a class activity and retake the written exam, despite granting other students the opportunity. (Id.) The professor did not reply to Plaintiff's emails asking to retake the exam. (Id.)
Plaintiff "received a final grade of D in her Intro to Communication class," which "significantly lowered Plaintiff [']s GPA." (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff appealed her grade, completing "all four steps of [the] appeal process." (Id.) The final step was to appear in front of a panel, including Dr. Reema Zeinlden, Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs and Professor of Health & Natural Sciences, who "instructed the hearing panel to disregard any of Plaintiff[']s stalkingallegations." (Id.) Instead, Plaintiff had "thirty minutes to tell why her D grade should be overturned." (Id.)
In December 2019, Plaintiff was sitting in the Mercy College library when students started "yelling at her" and "screaming mock her kook her mock it keep mocking her." (Id.) Students in the classroom closest to the library "erupted in raucous laughter and persisted with the same continued rant." (Id.) (Id.)
Kristen Bowes, General Counsel at Mercy College, emailed Plaintiff and referred her to the college's counseling services. (Id.) Bowes stated, "We do not believe Plaintiff when Plaintiff says she is a victim of cyberstalking/stalking." (Id.) Canzanos and Bowes also emailed Plaintiff and asked her "to please take advantage of Mercy counseling services because the disturbance in the library clearly disturbed [her]." (Id.)
In January 2020, Reema Zeinlden, Associate Professor for Faculty Affairs, informed Plaintiff that Zeinlden had instructed Thomas McDonald, the Title IX Coordinator/Equity Compliance Specialist at Mercy College, to contact Plaintiff to discuss the cyberstalking/stalking allegations. (Id. at 4.) When McDonald contacted Plaintiff, he did not discuss Plaintiff's allegations, but "referred her to [Mercy College] counseling services and gave Plaintiff referrals to victims of cyberstalking/stalking centers." (Id.) He then "promptly hung up the phone, after he acknowledged he had nothing more to say to Plaintiff after he referred Plaintiff to cyberstalking/stalking centers." (Id.)
Plaintiff's application for Defendant's graduate program in psychology was denied. (Id. at 8.) Defendant had instructed all applicants to enroll in a statistics course—a requirement for the program. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff "dropped college algebra and enrolled in the statisticscourse." (Id.) She was later informed that the statistics course at Defendant's Harlem campus was "a mere math class and not equivalent to [a Mercy College] statistics class." (Id.) Before and after Plaintiff filed complaints of stalking, she "had several conversations with . . . Dr. Trenz Director of Behavioral Sciences, and the Grad School Psychology Program regarding her difficulties she faced on and, off [Mercy College's] Harlem site." (Id.) Dr. Trenz "waived Plaintiff[']s two Grad School recommendation letters, [and] directed Plaintiff to indicate her (Dr. Trenz) as a recommendation." (Id.) She also "read Plaintiff[']s Grad School Personal Statement and was intrigued." (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff "was led to believe her application would be accepted." (Id.)
Plaintiff also alleges that students from "[t]he College of New Rochelle were officially enrolled as [Mercy College] students" (id. at 9), because the two institutions "finalized a transition agreement that allowed the College of New Rochelle student's [sic] uninterrupted classes." (Id.) And in August 2020, Mercy College plans to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial