Kinji Scott v. Erika Malone, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland considers Kinji Scott’s claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Maryland anti-discrimination law concerning the refusal to recognize his funeral-service apprenticeship. The court denies Scott’s motion for equitable tolling as moot because the federal claims were filed within the applicable three-year limitations period. The court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss, including dismissal of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the individual defendant in her individual capacity, while addressing sovereign-immunity and pleading issues.

Holdings

1. Equitable tolling was unnecessary and Plaintiff's motion was denied as moot because the complaint was filed less than one year after the alleged discrimination and within Maryland's three-year limitations period borrowed for ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; those claims also did not require administrative exhaustion for this non-federal employee.
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss the ADA claim on Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity grounds was denied because the Rehabilitation Act claim independently supplied subject matter jurisdiction and the identical Title II claim could proceed against the state defendants to the extent the Rehabilitation Act's waiver applied; prospective injunctive relief against the official-capacity defendant was also available under Ex parte Young.
3. The ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act do not authorize individual-capacity discrimination claims against Defendant Malone.
4. Plaintiff failed to state claims under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 because he did not plausibly allege a connection between his claimed depression-related limitations and the requested accommodation of recognizing his apprenticeship and allowing him to proceed with licensure.
5. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Maryland State Government section 10-1103 because that statute concerns language access for individuals with limited English proficiency, and the complaint alleged neither limited English proficiency nor a failure to provide language access.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling was necessary or could be denied as moot because his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were filed within the applicable limitations period and were not subject to administrative exhaustion.
2. Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred Plaintiff's Title II ADA claim against the Maryland Department of Health, the Maryland Board of Morticians and Funeral Directors, and an official-capacity defendant.
3. Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act permit individual-capacity claims against Defendant Malone.
4. Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the requested accommodation—recognition of his apprenticeship and permission to proceed with licensure—was connected to and would ameliorate his disability.
5. Whether Plaintiff stated a claim under Maryland State Government section 10-1103.

Disposition

dismissed