Calderon Ortiz v. Pace University

Background

Ana Esther Calderon Ortiz alleged that she had been a Pace University student since 2018 and developed depression while taking classes. She alleged that she sought medical leave, but Pace limited medical leave to two trimesters and refused leave for the fall 2019 semester. According to the complaint, this affected her grade-point average, prevented her from continuing as a student, and disqualified her from a presidential scholarship. She also alleged that Pace denied leave for fall 2020, 2021, 2022, and the beginning of 2023, and canceled her registration.

Ortiz alleged that Pace acted because of her disability, race, and age. She claimed injuries including depression, shame, loss of enjoyment of life, medical treatment caused by stress, and harm to her career trajectory. She sought money damages and reinstatement as a student. Her complaint asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and stated that she suffered racial discrimination. She attached about 85 pages of supporting materials, including academic records, communications, medical records, and other documents.

Pace moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Ortiz did not oppose the motion. The court explained that the lack of opposition did not by itself justify dismissal; the court still had to determine whether the complaint was legally sufficient, accepting factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Ortiz’s favor.

Standing

The court rejected Pace’s argument that Ortiz lacked standing, meaning a sufficient personal injury allowing a federal court to hear the dispute. Ortiz alleged concrete harms, including denial of medical leave, loss of the presidential scholarship, and cancellation of her registration. The court concluded that these allegations created a real controversy between Ortiz and Pace and that Ortiz had standing to seek damages for past injuries.

Failure to State a Claim

The court nevertheless held that the complaint failed under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court found that Ortiz adequately alleged that depression could qualify as a disability and that Pace, as a private university, was covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act’s public-accommodation provisions.

The court found the disability-discrimination allegations insufficient because Ortiz did not allege facts showing that the requested medical leave was a reasonable accommodation or that denying it was disability discrimination. The complaint did not explain when she requested leave, what she told Pace, why Pace denied it, or how the different semesters related to her claim. The court characterized the complaint as asserting, without enough supporting facts, that Ortiz requested an accommodation, was denied it, and was discriminated against.

The court also held that Ortiz’s race- and age-discrimination allegations were insufficient. Her general belief that Pace’s actions were connected to her race or age did not provide the specific facts needed to plausibly connect the alleged adverse treatment to those characteristics. The court further stated that it was not required to search through the attached documents for facts omitted from the complaint; the relevant facts had to be stated clearly in the complaint itself.

Disposition and Amendment

The court granted Pace University’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court permitted Ortiz to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by March 10, 2025. If she did not timely amend, the court stated that it would direct the clerk to close the case. The court also directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Numbers 9 and 10.