Gentleman v. State University of New York - Stony Brook et al
| Molly M. Gentleman |
| Michael Dudley, Alexander Orlov, Chandrani Roy, State University of New York - Stony Brook and Jason Trelewicz |
| 2:2016cv02012 |
| April 25, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1201 Civil Rights (Disability) |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
42
DECISION & ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Court grants in part and denies in part SUNYs 38 motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In particular, having found that the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to make it plausible that she was regarded by her employer as having a disabling mental condition, and was terminated based on that perception, the Court denies the motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint based on unlawful termination under the Rehabilitation Act. Further, having found that the five-month period of time between the Plaintiffs alleged request for a reasonable accommodation and her termination is not so temporally remote as to preclude a claim for retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, the Court also denies the motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint. However, the Court finds that settled principles of sovereign immunity bar the Plaintiffs ability to maintain a common law breach of contract claim against SUNY. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to dismiss Count III of the third amended complaint. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/6/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; Based on the foregoing, the Court directs the following: (1) Consistent with this opinion, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to fi le a Third Amended Complaint within 20 days after the entry of this Order; (2) The Court grants the Defendants motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action based on § 1983 due process violations and § 1983 retaliation, respective ly. Accordingly, this action is dismissed in its entirety as against the individual Defendants and the official title of this action shall be amended as follows: see Decision. (3) The Court also provisionally grants the Defendants motion to dismiss t he first cause of action against SUNY based on disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. If the Plaintiffs purported Third Amended Complaint again fails to include plausible allegations that SUNY or its Department of Materials Science a nd Engineering received federal funding at the times in question, as required by the statute, then the Defendants may renew their request that the first cause of action be dismissed; and (4) The Court denies the Defendants motion to dismiss the secon d and third causes of action against SUNY based on retaliatory discharge under the Rehabilitation Act and common law breach of contract, respectively. This case is respectfully referred to United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for the completion of discovery. Chandrani Roy, Jason Trelewicz, Michael Dudley and Alexander Orlov terminated. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 11/21/2016. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
