Uriella v. Reinhardt University

Filing 11

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 09/24/2024. (bmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
NETANYA URIELLA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:24-CV-1105-TWT

REINHARDT UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action. It is before the Court on the Defendant
Reinhardt University’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9], which is unopposed. For the
reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] is
GRANTED.
I.

Background1

The Plaintiff Netanya Uriella was a student at the Defendant Reinhardt
University in the nursing school until March 15, 2022. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8). On
that date, she withdrew from the University after failing her final skills
checkoff in the NUR 307 course. (Id.). The Plaintiff had requested academic
accommodations for her learning disability in August 2021 from the
University’s Academic Support Office. (Id. ¶ 11). The University granted her

The Court accepts the facts as alleged in the [Amended] Complaint as
true for purposes of the present Motion to Dismiss. Wildling v. DNC Servs.
Corp., 941 F.3d 1116, 1122 (11th Cir. 2019).
1

several accommodations, including extended time on tests and quizzes, a
non-distracting testing environment, the ability to record lectures, note-taking
assistance, and the ability to type assignments, homework, and tests. (Id.
¶ 12). The NUR 307 course is a “skills lab,” where students practice a skill and
then complete performance exams or skills checkoffs one on one with the
instructor. (Id. ¶ 13). Any skill that is not successfully completed is added to a
final skills checkoff, and if the student does not pass the final skills checkoff,
the student does not pass the NUR 307 course. (Id.). The Plaintiff was unable
to pass four different skills checkoffs given on four different dates. (Id. ¶ 14).
The Plaintiff asserts five counts, although the exact claims are difficult
to discern. In Count One, the Plaintiff alleges that her rights under the ADA
were violated when she was made to take her skills checkoffs in the classroom
and in the presence of other students. (Id. ¶ 15). In Count Two, the Plaintiff
alleges that her rights under the ADA were violated when she was videotaped
during her skills checkoffs without her consent, which she alleges was
distracting. (Id. ¶ 16). In Count Three, the Plaintiff alleges that her rights
under the ADA were violated when, in November 2021, she was advised that
she should withdraw from the University to protect her GPA in lieu of having
a failing grade on her record, as she had not successfully completed the skills
portion of NUR 307. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19). In Count Four, the Plaintiff alleges that
white students were allowed to retake NUR 307 and continue in the nursing
program, but that she was not permitted to retake the course because she is

black and disabled, which violated her rights under the ADA. (Id. ¶ 21). And
in Count Five, the Plaintiff alleges that her rights under the ADA were violated
when she withdrew from the University in March of 2022, resulting in
“significant financial loss and difficulty.” (Id. ¶ 22). The Defendant responded
to the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint by filing the present Motion to Dismiss,
which the Plaintiff did not respond to.
II. Legal Standards
A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only where it
appears that the facts alleged fail to state a “plausible” claim for relief. Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint may
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, however, even if it is
“improbable” that a plaintiff would be able to prove those facts; even if the
possibility of recovery is extremely “remote and unlikely.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court
must accept the facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construe them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A.

v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 994-95 (11th Cir.
1983); see also Sanjuan v. American Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 40
F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994) (noting that at the pleading stage, the plaintiff
“receives the benefit of imagination”). Generally, notice pleading is all that is
required for a valid complaint. See Lombard’s, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 753
F.2d 974, 975 (11th Cir. 1985). Under notice pleading, the plaintiff need only

give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon
which it rests. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
III. Discussion
In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant first argues that it cannot be
sued under Title II of the ADA because it is a private university and therefore
not a public entity. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, at 2-3). Second, the Defendant
argues that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act because she has not alleged that the University receives
federal financial assistance, or that it received such assistance during the time
frame that she alleges she was discriminated against. (Id. at 4-5). The
Defendant also notes that none of the Plaintiff’s Counts actually allege
violations under Section 504 or any of its requisite elements. (Id. at 5-6).
At the outset, the Court agrees with the Defendant that despite making
allegations in each Count that the Plaintiff’s rights were violated only under
the ADA, the Plaintiff also cites Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the
introduction of her Amended Complaint. (See Am. Compl. at 1-2). Thus, the
Court will address her claims under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act
out of an abundance of caution.
First, the Plaintiff references only Title II of the ADA, which applies to
public entities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.; (Am. Compl. at 1-2 & ¶ 1).
However, the Defendant is a privately owned university. Reinhardt University,

History, https://www.reinhardt.edu/about/history/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2024).
Title II specifically defines a public entity as, inter alia, “any department,
agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States
or local government.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B). The Defendant, as a privately
owned non-profit corporation, does not meet this definition, and Title II of the
ADA therefore does not apply. Thus, even construing the facts as pled in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under Title II of the ADA. See Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A., 711 F.2d at
994-95.
Second, the Plaintiff references Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
which prevents discrimination on the basis of a disability by any “program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). A “program
or activity” specifically includes “a college, university, or other postsecondary
institution.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(2)(A). But as the Defendant points out, the
Plaintiff makes no allegation that the Defendant receives financial assistance
of any type that would subject it to liability under Section 504. (See generally
Am. Compl.). Without such an allegation, the Court cannot determine whether
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to the Plaintiff’s claims. Banks v.

The News Group, 2018 WL 10510819, at *2 (N.D.Ga. June 25, 2018), report &
recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 10510818 (N.D.Ga. July 17, 2018). The
Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant Reinhardt University’s Motion
to Dismiss [Doc. 9] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED, this

24th

day of September, 2024.
______________________________
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge