Freckleton v. Mercy Coll. N.Y.

── Freckleton v. Mercy Coll. N.Y. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General 25-832-cv Freckleton v. Mercy Coll. N.Y. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of May, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MALVIA M. FRECKLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-832-cv MERCY COLLEGE NY, SUSAN MOSCOU, MIRIAM FORD, Defendants-Appellees. ------------------------------------------------------------------  FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: MALVIA M. FRECKLETON, pro se, Philadelphia, PA FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: B. JACK ROBINSON (Jeffrey S. Kramer, on the brief), Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, New York, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kenneth M. Karas, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Malvia M. Freckleton, representing herself, appeals from the March 28, 2025 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Karas, J.) dismissing her complaint in part for failure to state a claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 1 and granting summary judgment on her ADA retaliation claim in favor of Defendants-Appellees Mercy College NY and two of its administrators (collectively, “Mercy”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 1 The District Court also construed Freckleton’s complaint to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as claims under New York State law for breach of contract and fraud. It dismissed all of these claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal, Freckleton does not challenge and we therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of these claims. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1995). 2 facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. “[W]e review dismissals for failure to state a claim and grants of summary judgment de novo.” Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d 95, 102 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014). When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim we “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw inferences from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Tsirelman v. Daines, 794 F.3d 310, 313 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). When reviewing a grant of summa