Lyansky v. Coastal Carolina University et al

Filing 75

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the Report, the objections, and the record before this court, and for the reasons set forth above, the court adopts the Report, ECF No. 66 , in its ent irety and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this court that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, ECF No. 44 , is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's causes of action arising under Title VII and the ADA are dismissed, and this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Sherri A Lydon on 8/1/2022. (prou, )

4:21-cv-01879-SAL-KDW

Date Filed 08/01/22

Entry Number 75

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Yan Lyansky,
Plaintiff,
v.
Coastal Carolina University, and Dr.
Michael H. Roberts,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 4:21-cv-1879-SAL

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West (the “Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 66.] For the reasons
outlined herein, the court adopts the Report in its entirety.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior to initiating his action in this court, Plaintiff filed a complaint of disability discrimination
with the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the Department of Education (“DOE”) against his
former employer, Defendant Coastal Carolina University (“CCU”). [ECF No. 44-2.] OCR
dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and declined to open an investigation. Id. Plaintiff appealed the
dismissal to the DOE, and on September 3, 2020, the DOE issued a final agency decision affirming
the dismissal. [ECF No. 43-3.]
On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against CCU and Dr.
Michael H Roberts, the Dean of the College of Science at CCU. Plaintiff alleges disability
discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

1

4:21-cv-01879-SAL-KDW

Date Filed 08/01/22

Entry Number 75

Page 2 of 6

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101; and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 790. [ECF
No. 41, Am. Compl.] He also alleges various state-law based causes of action. Id.
On February 18, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADA
causes of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [ECF
No. 44]. On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. [ECF No. 48.] Thereafter,
the Magistrate Judge issued the Report that is the subject of this order. Therein, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the court grant Defendants’ motion for dismissal to the extent it seeks
dismissal of any claims Plaintiff brings pursuant to Title VII or Titles I or II of the ADA. [ECF
No. 66.] Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on June 3, 2022, and Defendants did not file a
response. [ECF No. 70.] The matter is thus ripe for consideration by this court.
REVIEW OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
“An objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—
factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the
Carolinas, LLC, No. 0:15-cv-04009, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2017) (citation

2

4:21-cv-01879-SAL-KDW

Date Filed 08/01/22

Entry Number 75

Page 3 of 6

omitted). A specific objection “requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the [pleading]
or a mere citation to legal authorities.” Sims v. Lewis, No. 6:17-cv-3344, 2019 WL 1365298, at *2
(D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2019). It must “direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Thus, “[i]n
the absence of specific objections . . . this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation.” Field v. McMaster, 663 F. Supp. 2d 449, 451–52 (4th Cir. 2009).
DISCUSSION
The Report recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADA causes of action. The
court reviews the Report’s recommendation and Plaintiff’s objections as to each statute, in turn.
I. Title VII
The Report’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title VII is two-fold.
First, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
because he did not file a charge with the EEOC or the state-equivalent agency—in this case, the
South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (“SCHAC”)—as required under Title VII. [ECF No.
66 at 9 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1), (f)(1)).] Second, Plaintiff’s claims concern his alleged
disability, and Title VII does not apply to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment based
on the employee’s disability. See id. at 10 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (prohibiting
employment discrimination due to an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”)).
Because Plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate
are not cognizable under Title VII, the Magistrate Judge considered the claims under the ADA,
despite their Title VII label. See [ECF No. 66 at 12.]

3

4:21-cv-01879-SAL-KDW

Date Filed 08/01/22

Entry Number 75

Page 4 of 6

In his objections, Plaintiff concedes that Title VII was “inappropriate in all instances” and
bringing his claims under Title VII was in error. Thus, finding no objection to this portion of the
Report or clear error, the court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims brought under Title VII.
II. ADA
Next, the court turns to Plaintiff’s claims arising under the ADA. Plaintiff’s amended
complaint refers to his employment discrimination claims as brought under Title II of the ADA.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the claims because Fourth Circuit precedent is
clear that Title II does not provide a vehicle for Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims
against CCU. [ECF No. 66 at 12 (citing Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, 789 F.3d 407, 42122 (4th Cir. 2015)).] As Plaintiff concedes in his objections, his claims fall under Title I of the
ADA. 1 [ECF No. 70 at 5.] However, to the extent that Plaintiff intended to assert claims in this
action under Title I of the ADA, the Magistrate Judge found the claims nevertheless subject to
dismissal because Title I incorporates the same administrative exhaustion requirements of Title
VII that Plaintiff did not satisfy. See [ECF No. 66 at 12 (citing Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288
F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002)); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a)).]
Plaintiff’s objections reassert his position that he exhausted his administrative remedies under
the ADA by filing a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (the
“OCR”). Plaintiff maintains that OCR was the correct forum in which to file his disability
discrimination claims, and he should not be penalized for OCR’s failure to notify Defendants of
the action. See [ECF No. 41 at 3–4.] However, as explained in the Report, OCR is not the correct

Title I prohibits employment discrimination while Title II prohibits discrimination in providing
public services. See Reyazuddin, 789 F.3d at 420-21.
1

4

4:21-cv-01879-SAL-KDW

Date Filed 08/01/22

Entry Number 75

Page 5 of 6

agency for filing a Title I ADA employment-discrimination complaint. 2 Plaintiff was required to
file a charge with the EEOC or a state-equivalent agency, and the OCR does not satisfy either
criterion. See [ECF No. 66 at 9–11]. This requirement “‘ensures that the employer is put on notice
of the alleged violations,’ thereby giving it a chance to address the alleged discrimination prior to
litigation.” Sydnor v. Fairfax Cnty., Va., 681 F.3d 591, 593 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Miles v. Dell,
Inc., 429 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2005)). Because Plaintiff did not satisfy this exhaustion
requirement, the court adopts the Report’s recommendation to dismiss any causes of action
Plaintiff purports to bring under Title I of the ADA.
In sum, any claims Plaintiff purports to bring under the ADA are dismissed because the court
finds no clear error in the portion of the Report recommending dismissal of his Title II claims, and
the court adopts, after a de novo review, the portion of the portion of the Report recommending
dismissal of any Title I claims.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the Report, the objections, and the record before this court, and for the
reasons set forth above, the court adopts the Report, ECF No. 66, in its entirety and incorporates
the Report by reference herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this court that Defendants’ partial
motion to dismiss, ECF No. 44, is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s causes of action arising
under Title VII and the ADA are dismissed, and this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge
for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The OCR has jurisdiction to investigate and enforce violations of Title II of the ADA, but as
Plaintiff concedes, Title II is not the appropriate vehicle for his claims. See [ECF No. 70 at 5.]
2

5

4:21-cv-01879-SAL-KDW

Date Filed 08/01/22

Entry Number 75

Page 6 of 6

/s/ Sherri A. Lydon______________
United States District Judge

August 1, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

6