Pitzer et al v. Louisville Archdiocese et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 3/21/2014; re 12 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ; a separate order will be entered in accordance with this opinion.cc:counsel (TLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

MICHAEL PITZER, ET AL

PLAINTIFFS

vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV-749-S

LOUISVILLE ARCHDIOCESE, ET AL

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this action, the plaintiffs, by amended complaint, assert various claims for violations of
the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794
(“Section 504”), as well as the implementing regulations of both. The plaintiffs also assert
Fourth Amendment and due process claims.
The defendants have filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(c) (DN 12). The plaintiffs have responded (DN 23) and the issues are now
properly before the Court for rulings.
I.

The defendants move to dismiss St. Margaret Mary School on the basis that it is

not an entity separate from a co-defendant, which has been named as “Louisville Archdiocese.”
In fact, the defendants contend that even that party is misnamed and that the appropriate legal
entity is “Office of Catholic Schools, Archdiocese of Louisville, Kentucky, Incorporated.”
The Court is informed by the pleadings that the appropriate suable entity in this matter is
the “Archdiocese of Louisville, Kentucky, Incorporated” whether or not the “Office of Catholic
Schools” is added. In any case, it appears that St. Margaret Mary School is not a separate legal
entity from the Archdiocese.

Accordingly, St. Margaret Mary School will be dismissed, leaving the claims asserted
against the school and the Archdiocese as against the Archdiocese only.
II.

The defendants ask that the claims against Defendants Wendy Sims, Brenda

Clark, and Barbara Voet be dismissed due to the immunity provided by the Paul D. Coverdell
Teacher Protection Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. § 6731, et seq.) There is no doubt that this legislation
provides certain liability protections and limitations for claims against teachers. See 20 U.S.C. §
6736.
However, in a motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the question is only whether a
colorable claim has been asserted, not whether there is evidentiary support for the claim or
whether summary judgment may ultimately be appropriate.
The motion to dismiss the claims against the individuals, at this stage, must therefore be
denied.
III.

The defendants contend that the plaintiffs’ claims against them under Title III of

the ADA should be dismissed based upon the religious exemption at 41 U.S.C. § 12187. In
support, the defendants cite the case of Marshall v. Sisters of Holy Family of Nazareth (399
F.Supp. 2nd 597 (E.D. PA, 2005).
The plaintiffs do not appear to offer argument as to why this statutory exemption should
not be applied in this case.
It is beyond argument that the Archdiocese of Louisville falls within this exemption, and
that the claims against the Archdiocese under the ADA must be dismissed as failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion will be granted to

the extent that it seeks dismissal of the ADA claims against the Archdiocese of Louisville, but
denied as to the remaining defendants.
IV.

Last, the defendants request judgment on the pleadings in regard to punitive

damages, pointing out that under Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. § 181 (2002), punitive damages
are not available under the ADA nor under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs do
not argue to the contrary, and judgment will accordingly be rendered on this aspect of the case.
A separate order will be entered in accordance with this Opinion.
March 21, 2014

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

cc: Counsel of Record