Hamm v. City University of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-02876
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hamm v. City University of New York, Judge Stanton dismissed disability claims because Hamm did not allege discrimination based on his disability.
Jeffery Hamm’s amended Rehabilitation Act and Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claims were dismissed; his request for injunctive relief was denied as moot.
What happened
Hamm v. City University of New York concerned Jeffery Hamm’s claim that school officials should have told him he could withdraw from classes without penalty after his wife’s death. Hamm, a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, represented himself.
The court had allowed him to amend claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In his amended complaint, Hamm again alleged that he was disabled, but he did not allege that the defendants denied him benefits or excluded him because of that disability.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the amended complaint under the statute governing screening of claims filed without the filing fee because it failed to state a claim. The court also denied Hamm’s request for an injunction as moot.
The detailed version
- Hamm v. City University of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02876
- Louis Stanton
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
Jeffery Hamm, a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights by allowing him to fail his classes without informing him that he could withdraw from school without penalty after his wife’s death.
In an earlier order, the court construed his complaint as asserting claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court dismissed claims against Herbert H. Lehman College and the Office of Students with Disabilities, dismissed the Title III claims, and allowed Hamm to amend the Rehabilitation Act and Title II claims.
Hamm filed an amended complaint that again named Herbert H. Lehman College and the Office of Students with Disabilities and also named Gabriella Kohler, Ivan Krstovska-Guerrero, and Enja Schenck. He repeated many of his earlier allegations and continued to argue that the defendants should have allowed him to withdraw from his classes without penalty.
Legal Standard
To state a disparate-treatment claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must allege that he has a disability, is otherwise qualified for the benefit or activity, was excluded solely because of the disability, and was denied participation in a program receiving federal funds. For a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must allege that he is a qualified person with a disability, was denied the benefits of a public entity’s services or programs or otherwise discriminated against, and that the denial or discrimination occurred because of his disability.
Because Hamm filed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that fail to state a claim.
Court’s Ruling
The court held that Hamm did not allege that his disability was the basis for the defendants’ conduct. Merely alleging that he was disabled did not show that he was denied benefits or excluded from them because of his disability. The court therefore dismissed his Rehabilitation Act and Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claims for failure to state a claim.
The court dismissed Hamm’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denied his request for injunctive relief as moot. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.