Ebalu v. New York City Police Department

Background

Poindexter Ebalu filed this self-represented lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, alleging that the New York City Police Department discriminated against him during the hiring process because it said or believed that he had a disability. Ebalu alleged that the Police Department disqualified him from a police-officer position in 2016 without giving him a valid reason. He also alleged that he had received an email directing him to take a medical examination before the email was withdrawn, and that he had documentation showing he was cleared to be hired.

Ebalu paid the filing fee after the court denied his request to proceed without paying because his amended financial application showed that he had sufficient assets to pay the fee.

Legal standard

The court explained that it may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim—a determination that the pleaded facts do not plausibly show a legal violation—even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. It must read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement of facts showing entitlement to relief. Legal conclusions and unsupported assertions are not enough.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court considered the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act together because their standards generally are the same for this case. Under the disability statutes, a person is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act if the person has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. A claim may also be based on an employer’s perception that the person has a disability.

The court concluded that Ebalu had not stated enough facts to support a disability-discrimination claim. He did not identify an actual physical or mental impairment or explain how any impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Although he appeared to allege that the Police Department perceived him as disabled, he did not describe the perceived disability or allege facts showing that the Police Department disqualified him because of that disability.

The Rehabilitation Act claim had an additional defect: Ebalu did not allege that the Police Department received federal financial assistance, which is required for the type of Rehabilitation Act claim he appeared to assert.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Ebalu was representing himself and might be able to state a valid federal employment-discrimination claim by providing additional facts, the court granted him 60 days to amend his complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Ebalu must repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that he wants the court to consider.

The court ordered Ebalu to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it as an amended complaint, and include docket number 21-CV-6476 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if he did not comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.

Outcome

The court granted leave to amend the complaint within 60 days. It did not decide that the Police Department had or had not discriminated against Ebalu on the merits.