Ryan Alvey v. Matthew 25 AIDS Services, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky conducted an in forma pauperis screening of Ryan Alvey’s pro se complaint against Matthew 25 AIDS Services, Inc. The court dismissed the Title VII and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims for failure to state a claim, while allowing ADA and Kentucky Civil Rights Act retaliation claims and ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky Civil Rights Act disability-discrimination claims to proceed. The opinion expresses no view on the merits of the continuing claims.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged ADA retaliation claims based on failure to hire and denial of medical services, so those claims could proceed past § 1915(e) screening.
2. The Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim failed to state a claim and was dismissed.
3. The Title VII retaliation claim failed to state a claim and was dismissed because the alleged protected activity concerned disability and HIV-related discrimination, which is not activity opposing a Title VII-prohibited employment practice.
4. The complaint plausibly alleged a KCRA retaliation claim based on failure to hire, so that claim could proceed.
5. The complaint plausibly alleged ADA discrimination claims based on failure to hire and denial of medical services, so those claims could proceed.
6. The complaint plausibly alleged Rehabilitation Act § 504 discrimination claims based on failure to hire and denial of medical services, so those claims could proceed.
7. The complaint plausibly alleged a KCRA disability-discrimination claim based on failure to hire, so that claim could proceed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated plausible ADA retaliation claims based on alleged failure to hire and denial of medical services.
2. Whether the complaint stated a Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim.
3. Whether the complaint stated a Title VII retaliation claim where the alleged protected activity concerned disability and HIV-related discrimination rather than a Title VII-protected category.
4. Whether the complaint stated plausible Kentucky Civil Rights Act retaliation claims based on alleged failure to hire.
5. Whether the complaint stated ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky Civil Rights Act disability-discrimination claims based on alleged failure to hire and denial of medical services.

Disposition

other