Doherty v. Bice

Background

Jason Doherty sued Patricia Bice, Jared Stammer, and Qui Qui Balascio in their official capacities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The remaining claims sought equitable relief against Bice and Balascio, and monetary relief against Stammer, Bice, and Balascio. The claims arose from three no-contact orders issued against Doherty during freshman orientation at Purchase College, State University of New York. Doherty alleged that the college did not give him a process to challenge the orders and that the orders harmed him because of his Asperger Syndrome.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(1) concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(c) permits judgment on the pleadings. The court had previously allowed the ADA claims at issue here to continue.

Equitable Relief

The court dismissed as moot Doherty’s ADA claim for equitable relief against Bice and Balascio. A claim is moot when a court can no longer provide effective relief. The court relied on the allegations and record indicating that Doherty was no longer a student and that the no-contact orders had expired. The court also noted that the orders were not in Doherty’s permanent academic record, were not disciplinary actions, and were not shared with other universities or prospective employers. Although Doherty argued that the orders could affect his future education and employment, the court concluded that equitable relief was no longer available.

Monetary Relief

The court also dismissed Doherty’s ADA claim for monetary relief against Stammer, Bice, and Balascio. The court concluded that Doherty sought damages for emotional distress. Doherty argued that he also sought damages comparable to breach-of-contract damages because the orders made it difficult for him to use Purchase’s facilities. The court rejected that characterization because he had not pleaded a specific contract, asserted a breach-of-contract claim, or offered evidence of economic damages.

The court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., which held that emotional-distress damages are unavailable under the Rehabilitation Act and other federal antidiscrimination laws covered by that decision. The court reasoned that the ADA expressly incorporates the Rehabilitation Act’s remedies, procedures, and rights. It therefore concluded that emotional-distress damages are also unavailable under Title II of the ADA.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion. The court dismissed with prejudice Doherty’s ADA claim for monetary relief against Stammer in his official capacity and his ADA claims for monetary and equitable relief against Bice and Balascio in their official capacities. The court stated that the equitable-relief claims were moot and that the monetary-relief claims were unavailable. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the action.