Taylor v. Norwalk Cmty. Coll.

• Decision Date: 28 September 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:13 - CV - 1889 (CSH)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. NORWALK COMMUNITY COLLEGE; JOHN SHIELDS, Individually and as Academic Advisor for General Studies, Norwalk Community College; ILENE BOYAR, Individually and as Test Monitor, Norwalk Community College; and ROBERT BAER, Ed.D., Individually and as Dean of Students, Norwalk Community College, Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. NORWALK COMMUNITY COLLEGE; JOHN SHIELDS, Individuallyand as Academic Advisor for General Studies, Norwalk Community College; ILENE BOYAR,Individually and as Test Monitor, Norwalk Community College; and ROBERT BAER,Ed.D., Individually and as Dean of Students, Norwalk Community College, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:13 - CV - 1889 (CSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SEPTEMBER 28, 2015

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge;

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Christopher Taylor commenced this action against Norwalk Community College ("NCC"), and individual defendants John Shields, Ilene Boyar and Robert Baer, in their individual and official capacities, as NCC employees, under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.¹ Specifically, in addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief against Defendants with respect to theirallegedly discriminatory conduct in requiring Plaintiff, as a person with the learning disability of dyslexia, to take an academic placement test without providing "reasonable accommodations."² Doc. 1, ¶ 1. According to Plaintiff, such reasonable accommodations should have included: "appropriate academic adjustments and auxiliary aids and services, by way of a medical professional to assist the [P]laintiff in the mechanics of the test taking which is conducted on a computer." Id.

In addition, in requiring Plaintiff to take the academic placement test without providing "a manner accessible to persons with disabilities, based on an individual assessment of [his] needs," Defendants allegedly violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, "which prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in programs receiving [f]ederal financial assistance." Id., ¶ 2. Furthermore,"by denying [Plaintiff] reasonable accommodations that have been granted to other persons with similar disabilities," Defendants have allegedly "deprived [Plaintiff] of his right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment" and "thereby violated his civil rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. [§] 1983 and/or have acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. Id.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following facts. In January 2012, Plaintiff enrolled as a full time student at NCC, a public community college located in Norwalk, Connecticut, which receives federal financial assistance. Id., ¶¶ 3-4. In April 2012, Plaintiff was informed by NCC that he was required to meet with NCC's Academic Advisor, John Shields, to discuss his course selection for the upcoming academic year. Id., ¶ 12. At that meeting, Shields informed Plaintiff that he must undertake an academic placement test using a computer. Id., ¶ 13. Plaintiff explained to Shields that he "suffered from a medical disability consisting of dyslexia, and that undergoing a placementtest on a computer would [be] virtually impossible for [him]." Id., ¶ 14. According to Plaintiff, Shields made no response to this information about Plaintiff's disability. Id., ¶ 15. The day after the meeting, Plaintiff appeared at NCC to take the computerized test, but became "overcome with anxiety because of his disability and left the testing center." Id., ¶ 16.

On the following day, Plaintiff allegedly received a phone call from Ilene Boyar, NCC's Test Monitor, and Plaintiff informed Boyar of his disability of dyslexia. Id., ¶ 17. Boyar and Plaintiff thereafter allegedly "spoke again, at which time the [P]laintiff requested permission from Defendants Boylar and NCC" to allow Plaintiff's doctor to accompany him "during his placement test to assist . . . with respect to his disability." Id. "NCC and Boyar agreed with the foregoing and further instructed . . . that the doctor be registered." Id., ¶ 18.

On or about April 5, 2013, Plaintiff and his doctor arrived at NCC for the placement test. Id., ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges that, "during the placement test, defendant NCC informed [him] and his doctor that they must leave the premises." Id. The next day, "defendant NCC and Boyar called the [P]laintiff" to a accuse him of "cheating and other allegations." Id., ¶ 20. Subsequently, NCC and Robert Baer, NCC's Dean of Students, commenced disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 21. On May 22, 2013, NCC and Baer held a "Student Conduct Hearing" which resulted in the Hearing Panel concluding that there was sufficient information to determine that Plaintiff had violated "Section 3 of the Policy on Student Conduct, Expectations for Student Conduct #2." Id., ¶ 22. That section mandates that students "[d]emonstrate academic integrity by not engaging in conduct that has the intent or effect of false representation of a student performance, including, but not limited to: a) cheating on an examination, and e) falsifying records or laboratory or other data." Id. Due to this finding, NCC "imposed the sanction of [e]xpulsion" on Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 23.

Consequently, Plaintiff has brought the present action before this Court. Plaintiff's Complaint includes the following causes of action: (1) violation of Section 309 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12189, for failure to allow Plaintiff to take his NCC placement test "in a place and manner accessible to persons with [his] disability" of dyslexia, such as the opportunity to transcribe his answers in a test booklet (rather than a computer) or to use of an amanuensis;³ Doc. 1, ¶¶ 37-41; (2) violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, for "subject[ing] [Plaintiff] to discrimination in the administration of the placement examination, solely by reason of his disability," Doc. 1, ¶¶ 42-49; (3) violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by discriminating against Plaintiff, a qualified individual with a disability, when NCC is a recipient of federal financial assistance, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 50-54; (4) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by providing others who have "similar disabilities with reasonable accommodations which they denied the [P]laintiff" to take necessary tests, thereby "violat[ing] [P]laintiff's civil rights as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983," Doc. 1, ¶ 55; and (5) treating Plaintiff in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner in "refus[ing] to provide . . . reasonable accommodations to the [P]laintiff while granting them to other person[s] who are similarly situated, and subjecting the [P]laintiff to the disciplinary hearing and expulsion," Doc. 1, ¶ 56.

In his Prayer for Relief, Plaintiff seeks "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring [D]efendants [to] grant him reasonable accommodations in [any] future placement examinations or [other] examinations;" "prohibiting present and future acts of discrimination against persons withdisabilities in violation of the provisions of the ADA, and requiring the [D]efendants to adopt a policy of providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities." Doc. 1, at 15, ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff also requests, inter alia, "[p]ermanent and injunctive relief mandating the [D]efendants to vacate . . . the findings and ruling of [his] expulsion . . . from NCC," $500,000 in compensatory damages, $1 million in punitive damages, and attorney's fees, "including litigation expenses and costs." Id., ¶¶ 5-8. In sum, Plaintiff seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages with respect to all Defendants.⁴

II. PENDING MOTION

Pending before the Court is a "Motion to Dismiss" the complaint [Doc. 7] by NCC and the three individual defendants (herein collectively "Defendants') pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.⁵ In particular, Defendants move to dismiss on the following five grounds, as listed in the order argued by Defendants:

(1) Plaintiff's first count for alleged violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12189, fails to state a claim because the Defendants "are not private persons or entities within the meaning of the statute, which appears in Title III of the [ADA]," Doc. 7, ¶ 1.

(2) Plaintiff's first three counts (violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12189, §12132, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794) fail to state claims "to the extent [that] they purport to assert claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities because as individuals, these defendants are not 'persons' or program providers within the meaning of Titles II [and] III of the ADA, or § 504," id., ¶ 2.

(3) Plaintiff's fourth count, an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (based on alleged equal protection violation) fails to state a viable claim -

(a) "to the extent it seeks to assert such claims against NCC and the individual defendants in their official capacities," because "the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars claims for both monetary and injunctive relief against such state defendants," id., ¶ 3;

(b) the "state defendants are not 'persons' within the meaning of § 1983," id.;

(c) to the extent such claims against the Defendants "seek monetary damages[,] they are barred by state sovereignimmunity,"⁶id.; and

(d) the claim "fails to allege a violation of equal protection by selective treatment," id..

(4) Plaintiff's fifth count for "arbitrary and capricious" treatment, if it is actually "a recognized cause of action under Connecticut law," is "barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, state sovereign immunity," id., ¶ 4.⁷

(5) "[A]ll of Plaintiff's claims . . . must be dismissed for insufficient service of process" pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5)," id., at 2.

The Court will examine each of Defendants' arguments for dismissal herein.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

In considering Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court will first address Defendants' jurisdictional challenge, which asserts that because Plaintiff failed to effect proper service upon Defendants, the Court lacks...