GLD v. City of New York

Background

GLD, a minor, and her mother, GD, sued the City of New York, three City agencies, Children’s Rescue Fund, and Kester A. Marcus. The complaint alleged that GLD, who has bipolar disorder, suffered two sexual assaults on February 14, 2018, when she was fourteen. The first assault allegedly occurred at a homeless shelter operated by Children’s Rescue Fund. The Administration for Children’s Services then removed GLD to a City-operated facility. After GLD left that facility without GD being notified, the complaint alleged that another person sexually assaulted her.

The complaint asserted five causes of action: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state-law claims for negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

City Defendants’ Motion

The City, the Human Resources Administration, the Department of Homeless Services, and the Administration for Children’s Services moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. For this motion, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly showed that the City Defendants were liable.

Section 1983 Claims

The plaintiffs sought to hold the City Defendants liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations. Under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality is not automatically responsible for an employee’s misconduct. The plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy or custom caused the constitutional injury.

The court agreed with the City Defendants that the complaint did not allege facts establishing that a municipal policy or custom caused GLD’s harm. The court found that the complaint relied on conclusory theories of municipal liability. It therefore granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act Claims

For claims involving discrimination in public services under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff must show, among other things, that she was denied participation in or benefits from a service, program, or activity, or was otherwise discriminated against because of her disability.

The court accepted that the complaint alleged GLD had a disability and that the City Defendants were subject to these laws. But it found that the complaint did not allege that GLD was denied a service or program because of her disability, or that the City Defendants discriminated against her because of her disability. The court also found no alleged link between the City Defendants’ claimed failures and disability-based discrimination. It granted the motion to dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claims against the City Defendants, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims in the same federal case. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-law claims against the City Defendants without prejudice to renewal in state court.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The order specifically granted dismissal of the § 1983, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims, and dismissed the state-law claims against the City Defendants without prejudice to renewal in state court. The opinion addresses the City Defendants’ motion and does not state a disposition for claims or defendants outside that motion.