Freckleton v. Mercy Coll. NY
| Decision Date | 27 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-CV-1985 (KMK) |
| Parties | MALVIA FRECKLETON, Plaintiff, v. MERCY COLLEGE NY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Malvia Freckleton, Pro Se Plaintiff
Jeffrey S. Kramer, Esq. Locke Lord LLP Counsel for Defendants
Malvia Freckleton (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action against Mercy College NY (“Mercy”), Susan Moscou (“Moscou”), and Miriam Ford (“Ford”) (altogether, “Defendants”), for discrimination and retaliation on the basis of her race and disability status, fraud, and breach of contract. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the claims brought in the Complaint (the “Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Dec. in Support of Mot. (Dkt. No. 20).)
For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether it considers the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's Opposition. Plaintiff's Opposition is approximately 180 pages, consisting mostly of attached exhibits, some of which are not legible. (See generally Mem. of Law for Reply to Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.'s Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 23).) Defendants urge the Court not to consider the additional allegations contained in Plaintiff's Opposition. (Defs.' Reply Mem. 2.) However, when reviewing a complaint submitted by a pro se plaintiff, the Court may consider “materials outside the complaint to the extent that they are consistent with the allegations in the complaint,” Alsaifullah v. Furco, No. 12-CV-2907, 2013 WL 3972514, at *4 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted), including “documents that a pro se litigant attaches to his opposition papers,” Agu v. Rhea, No. 09-CV-4732, 2010 WL 5186839, at *4 n.6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2010) (italics omitted), statements by the plaintiff “submitted in response to [a defendant's] request for a pre-motion conference,” Jones v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 11-CV-4733, 2013 WL 5300721, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2013), “documents either in [the plaintiff's] possession or of which [the] plaintiff[] had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit,” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted), and “[plaintiff's] opposition memorandum,” Gadson v. Goord, No. 96-CV-7544, 1997 WL 714878, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1997). Accordingly, the Court considers factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's Opposition and the exhibits attached.
Plaintiff “was a student in good standing with A's, B's, and one (1) C+ at the College of New Rochelle.” (Pl.'s Mem. 2.) In 2018, Plaintiff alleges Professor Susan Wilson (“Wilson”) discriminated against her by giving Plaintiff “bad grades so that [she] would not be able to continue and finish [her] BSN nursing degree since 2018.” (Id. at 4.) Wilson resigned from the College of New Rochelle when Plaintiff “handed a[n] audio recording to [t]he Office of Civil Rights” in December 2018 because Wilson “sabotaged Plaintiff by saying Plaintiff would never pass her NCLEX because [] Wilson had already planned it out to fail” Plaintiff. (Id. at 5.)
On February 15, 2019, the College of New Rochelle and Mercy finalized an agreement which allowed College of New Rochelle students in good standing the opportunity to transfer to Mercy for almost all academic disciplines offered by the College of New Rochelle. (Id. at 3.) The two colleges have since merged. (Id. at 6.) Wilson was hired by Mercy. (Id.)
On April 18, 2019, Plaintiff received an acceptance letter from Mercy. (Id. at 8.) On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff received a welcome letter from Mercy. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges she was “enroll[ed]” at Mercy, had signed a contract, and was scheduled to begin classes in August 2019 at Mercy. (Id. at 5, 11.) “On or before July 23, 2019, Plaintiff received a phone call from Mercy [] that Plaintiff is no longer a student.” (Id. at 8.) She alleges Mercy offered her “acceptance, placement, student application, and financial aid” and that “Plaintiff accepted placement as a Black (African American) student” but Mercy then “unaccepted” her. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff's “grades were in good standing and yet Mercy College revoke[d] Plaintiff's admission stating that Plaintiff has poor grades and there was no warning about poor grades.” (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff alleges there was “no reason for Plaintiff being expelled.” (Id. at 11.)
On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff met with Moscou and Ford, who work at Mercy College in the Nursing Department. (Id. at 8.) During that meeting, Moscou stated “you are not a student at Mercy.” (Id.) In a transcribed meeting Plaintiff alleges was recorded on August 8, 2019 between Plaintiff, Moscou, and Ford, attached to Plaintiff's Opposition, Plaintiff appears to tell Moscou that she had been “dismissed” from the College of New Rochelle because she had failed courses at the College of New Rochelle, in part due to the incident with Wilson. (Id. at 2; Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 3, at 9-16.) Moscou stated that Moscou and Ford would need to see the letter describing why Plaintiff was dismissed and her grades to decide whether they would accept Plaintiff or whether Plaintiff would have to reapply. (Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 3, at 8-10.) Plaintiff alleges Moscou stated “if we knew Professor Susan Wilson, we would have her change the grade, but we don't know her.” (Pl.'s Mem. 2.)
On August 8, 2019, Moscou and Ford sent Plaintiff an email stating they were “unable to readmit [Plaintiff] to the CNR teachout” and “unable to admit [Plaintiff] to the Mercy College Nursing Program.” (Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 1, at 6.) Plaintiff alleges Moscou and Ford “treated Plaintiff who is Black differently, by abruptly ending conversation and stating Plaintiff always ha[s] a story and that they wanted the facts even when Plaintiff presented the facts.” (Pl.'s Mem. 9.) Plaintiff additionally alleges that Moscou and Ford told her she was offered placement and that she “did enroll” but that she ultimately “was not accepted” into the nursing BSN program. (Id. at 11.) Moscou and Ford also allegedly “lied to Plaintiff that they did not know . . . Professor Susan Wilson” and “allowed [] Wilson to discriminate against Plaintiff [in] May 2018 by giving Plaintiff . . . low grades to fail Plaintiff at the College of New Rochelle.” (Id. at 2, 11.) Plaintiff further alleges Moscou and Ford were “behind an elaborate effort to falsify [Plaintiff's] acceptance to Mercy College.” (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff additionally alleges she received a “retaliation email” from Moscou, which stated “do not come here” “cease all communication with the Nursing Department” and “do not go to any of our Mercy College” events. (Compl. 5.) This email appears to have been sent on August 27, 2019. (Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 2, at 1.)
Plaintiff alleges she was diagnosed with anxiety beginning on March 24, 2016 and takes medication for her anxiety. (Pl.'s Mem. 9.) Plaintiff alleges she “developed a testing anxiety” and had received extra time on examinations at College of New Rochelle due to her documented disability. (Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 3, at 2, 7.) Plaintiff sent a letter from her doctor to Mercy's Office of Accessibility to which she received a reply email on July 12, 2019 stating (Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 6, at 6.) Plaintiff then states that “Mercy College denial of Plaintiff to pursue degree left Plaintiff . . . unbearable.” (Pl.'s Mem. 9.)
On March 1, 2022, Kristen Bowes, a Mercy attorney, emailed Plaintiff stating “you were not in good academic standing when the College of New Rochelle closed and therefore you were not able to transfer into Mercy College.” (Pl.'s Mem. at 8.) The letter further stated that “at that time, Mercy's Nursing program directors took an independent look at your transcript and confirmed that you do not have sufficient grades to meet the entry requirements for Mercy's Nursing Program.” (Pl.'s Mem. Ex. 2, at 3.) On March 8, 2022, Moscou and Ford sent an email to a Mercy attorney stating they “would prefer not to meet with” Plaintiff. (Id. at 5-6.)
Plaintiff alleges she has $53,000 of unpaid student loans and has not graduated with a nursing degree. (Pl.'s Mem. 12.)
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 3, 2022. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants filed the instant Motion and an accompanying Memorandum of Law on August 19, 2022. (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 19); Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. ( ) (Dkt. No. 21).) Plaintiff filed her Opposition on September 21, 2022. (See Mem. of Law for Reply to Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.'s Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 23).) Defendants filed a Reply on October 5, 2022. (See Reply to Mot. ( )
The Supreme Court has held that while a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of [her] entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 678 (2009). “Nor does...
To continue reading
Request your trial