A federal judge from the Middle District of Pennsylvania has all but gutted a lawsuit brought by a student athlete on the lacrosse team at Messiah College, who claimed she was discriminated against because of her dyslexia.
Plaintiff Ariana Borreggine enrolled at Messiah College in August 2011. The following spring, she injured her foot. She alleged on or around July 18, 2012 that a pattern of discriminatory behavior began, which was based on her dyslexia.
Borreggine alleged specifically that Messiah College Women’s Lacrosse Coach Heather Greer told her that she used dyslexia as a crutch; (2) drew diagrams insinuating that she was incapable of understanding instructions; (3) raised her voice at her when she did not understand instructions; (4) asked teammates to translate/ instructions for Borreggine; and (5) insisted on having Borreggine’s teammates present when she would ridicule her and imply that the plaintiff’s disability was exaggerated.
On January 22, 2013, the plaintiff’s parents complained to Messiah College Athletic Director Jack Cole about the discriminatory treatment directed at their daughter. A day later, at a meeting where the subject was whether to remove the plaintiff from the lacrosse team, Greer again, allegedly, called Borreggine a liar. The plaintiff was subsequently removed from the lacrosse team.
On January 26, 2013, Greer held a meeting with the team during which she allegedly told them they should cease all communications with the plaintiff. As a result, Borreggine was forced to withdraw from school, claiming she was ostracized by her friends.
On May 28, 2013, the plaintiff sued Messiah, the Board of Trustees of Messiah, and Messiah College staff Greer, Cole and Dr. Kris Hansen-Kieffer. She alleged in count one that all defendants unlawfully discriminated against her in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. She alleged in count two that all defendants violated Pennsylvania law by intentionally inflicting emotional distress. She also sought monetary damages as a result of the alleged discriminatory treatment she suffered and her resulting financial loss from transferring to a new school.
On July 25, 2013, the defendants moved for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Reviewing count one first, the court considered the individual defendants’ argument that the Third Circuit does not recognize liability for individual defendants under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court agreed, describing the Third Circuit’s position as “clear, and the court is therefore bound by its precedent.”
Next, the court turned to count two, and the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff “has not alleged sufficiently outrageous behavior to sustain the claim, nor has the plaintiff alleged the physical manifestations of emotional distress required under Pennsylvania law.
“The Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the facts alleged in the complaint would not be adequately outrageous, particularly at this early stage of the litigation. See Giannone v. Ayne Inst., 290 F.Supp.2d 553, 569 (E.D. Pa. 2003)
“Accepting the plaintiff’s pleaded facts as true, it would appear Defendant Greer intentionally ridiculed and embarrassed the plaintiff in front of her classmates and teammates, and falsely labeled her a liar. The plaintiff also alleges that she was improperly and maliciously removed from the lacrosse team, and that defendant Greer subsequently instructed her friends and teammates to cease all communications with her, isolating her and thus making it necessary for her to drop out of Messiah College. (Id.) The Court recognizes that name calling and other similarly rude behavior is not generally sufficient to prevail on an IIED claim under Pennsylvania law. See, e.g., Thompson v. AT&T Corp., 371 F. Supp. 2d 661, 666-67 (W.D. Pa. 2005); Lane v. Cole, 88 F.Supp.2d 402, 406 (E.D. Pa. 2000)
“The plaintiff’s allegations go beyond mere discriminatory ridicule and hurt feelings, however, as she alleges she was removed from the lacrosse team, isolated from her friends, and ultimately forced to leave Messiah College when Defendants took no steps to remedy the discriminatory treatment. See Lane at 406-407.
“Although the Court finds the averments sufficiently outrageous, the plaintiff fails to adequately allege she suffered accompanying physical harm. In her complaint, her sole averment is that she ‘has suffered severe emotional distress for which she is in on-going treatment.’ This reference to treatment is ambiguous, and no specific resulting physical symptoms are alleged in the complaint.” Thus, the court decided to dismiss count two without prejudice so that the plaintiff could replead her claim in accordance with the aforementioned standard.
Ariana Borreggine v. Messiah College, et al.; M.D. Pa.; No. 1:13-cv-01423, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163128; 11/15/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Stephen T. O’Hanlon, LEAD ATTORNEY, Philadelphia, PA. ( for defendants) Karen A. Salvemini, Rhoads & Sinon, LLP, Harrisburg, PA; Todd J. Shill, Rhoades & Sinon, Harrisburg, PA.
