Schneiderman v. American Chemical Society

Schneiderman · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · April 6, 2026 · No. 21-2737(L), 24-274(CON.)

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Arnold Schneiderman’s disability-discrimination action against the American Chemical Society for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) does not confer state citizenship based solely on principal place of business upon a federally chartered corporation that is not incorporated by a state. The court also upheld the denial of motions seeking reconsideration and reopening for further discovery.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Reena Raggi; Menashi; Merriam
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
April 6, 2026
Docket number
21-2737(L), 24-274(CON.)
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed from the Eastern District of New York's dismissal of his state-law disability-discrimination action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and from a later order denying reconsideration and reopening for further discovery concerning a possible federal claim.
Standard of review
Subject matter jurisdiction was reviewed de novo. The denial of reconsideration and reopening was reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Arnold Schneiderman, aka Moshe Schneiderman v. The American Chemical Society
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

subject matter jurisdictionstatutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of reviewada / disability

Practice areas

federal jurisdictioncivil procedurestatutory interpretationdisability discrimination

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)'s principal-place-of-business provision confers state citizenship for diversity purposes on a federally chartered corporation that is not incorporated by a state or foreign state.
  2. Whether the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying reconsideration and declining to reopen the case for further discovery concerning a possible Rehabilitation Act claim.

Holdings

  1. Section 1332(c)(1)'s principal-place-of-business provision applies only to corporations incorporated by a state or foreign state and does not independently confer state citizenship on a federally chartered corporation that is not incorporated by any state.
  2. Diversity jurisdiction was not established because ACS was a federally chartered corporation that was not a citizen of any state under § 1332(c)(1).
  3. The district court acted within its discretion in denying reconsideration and declining to reopen the case for further discovery concerning a possible Rehabilitation Act claim.

Key quotations

In sum, § 1332(c)(1) does not pertain to federally chartered corporations such as ACS, which are not incorporated by any State. (4)
Upon consideration of the text, context, and history of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), we conclude that the statute identifies State citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction by reference to a corporation’s principal place of business only for corporations that have been chartered by a State or foreign state, not for federally chartered corporations. (55)
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the challenged judgment and order of the district court in all respects. (56)

Factual background

Schneiderman, a New York citizen, sued ACS, a federally chartered corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C., for alleged disability discrimination. The underlying allegations concerned ACS's failure to provide reasonable accommodations that would have allowed Schneiderman to participate in the New York-based section of the 2014 United States National Chemistry Olympiad. The operative complaint asserted only a New York State Human Rights Law claim and invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Procedural history

Schneiderman and his mother initially sued the American Chemical Society under state and federal disability laws. After amendments, the operative third amended complaint asserted only a New York State Human Rights Law claim and relied on diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed without prejudice after concluding that ACS, a federally chartered corporation, was not a citizen of any state for diversity purposes, and later denied motions to reconsider and reopen the case. The Second Circuit affirmed both rulings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…