Freckleton v. Mercy College NY

Background

Maria M. Freckleton sued Mercy College NY, Susan Moscou, and Miriam Ford, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on race and disability status, fraud, and breach of contract. In a March 27, 2023 Opinion and Order, the court dismissed all claims except Freckleton’s retaliation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendants then moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on that remaining claim.

Freckleton had been a nursing student at the College of New Rochelle. After receiving low grades in nursing courses and failing Nursing 411 a second time, she was dismissed from that institution. When the College of New Rochelle later entered an agreement with Mercy College, certain students could transfer only if they were in good academic standing and otherwise in good standing with the institution. Freckleton was initially able to access Mercy College systems, apply for financial aid, and sign up for classes, but Mercy College later learned that she had been dismissed from the College of New Rochelle and was not eligible for the transfer program.

On July 11, 2019, Freckleton emailed Sara Venezian at Mercy College to request extra testing time because of testing anxiety. Venezian asked for more information about Freckleton’s disability and functional limitations, but Freckleton did not provide it. On August 8, 2019, Mercy College informed Freckleton that she would not be admitted through either the transfer program or the regular transfer process.

Legal standard and analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party, while the nonmoving party must provide admissible evidence supporting a genuine issue for trial. The court also gave Freckleton, who was proceeding without a lawyer, special consideration in reading her submissions, but explained that unsupported assertions were not enough to defeat summary judgment.

The court applied the three-step framework used for ADA retaliation claims. First, a plaintiff must make an initial showing that she engaged in protected activity, the defendant knew about it, the defendant took an adverse action, and the protected activity caused the adverse action. Second, the defendant must provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its action. Third, the plaintiff must present evidence that the stated reason was a pretext—a false explanation masking retaliation—and that retaliation was the actual cause of the action.

The court concluded that Freckleton met the initial showing. Her request for additional testing time was protected activity under the ADA. The evidence could support a finding that Venezian, a Mercy College officer, knew about the request. Denial of admission could qualify as an adverse action, and the less-than-one-month gap between the accommodation request and the admission denial could support an initial inference of causation.

The defendants, however, offered a legitimate reason for denying admission: Freckleton’s poor standing at the College of New Rochelle. The record showed that she had failed Nursing 411, had been dismissed, and that Mercy College learned of the dismissal before denying admission. The court found this evidence sufficient to support the defendants’ explanation.

The court then found that Freckleton had not shown pretext. She did not identify evidence showing weaknesses, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the defendants’ explanation, and the court’s review of the record did not find evidence that retaliation motivated the decision. The court held that the timing of the decision, standing alone, was insufficient at this stage to establish that retaliation was the reason for the denial.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, enter judgment for the defendants, mail the Opinion and Order to Freckleton, and close the case.