Cohn v. Pa. State Univ.

DARAN COHN, Plaintiff v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2857

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAY 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM

PRATTER, J.

INTRODUCTION

Daran Cohn challenges what she alleges were The Pennsylvania State University's unlawful actions concerning her enrollment in its graduate Physician Assistant Program. She poses a number of different claims and theories. Ms. Cohn alleges that Penn State failed to provide her the reasonable accommodations she needed as an individual suffering with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and anxiety and then retaliated against her after she repeatedly brought this failure to Penn State's attention. Ms. Cohn also asserts that Penn State breached a contract with her by failing to follow its own policies and procedures. Alternatively, Ms. Cohn asserts that she reasonably relied on Penn State's contract-like promise to follow its own policies as well as its communications concerning her eligibility to graduate. Finally, Ms. Cohn asserts negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims based on Penn State's communications concerning her eligibility to graduate.

After the Court dismissed some of Ms. Cohn's claims as presented in her First Amended Complaint, the Court granted her leave to file a second amended complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Penn State now moves to dismiss some of the claims Ms. Cohn asserts in her Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, Penn State seeks to dismiss various claims for punitive damages, compensatory damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief as well as her breach of contract, promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance, and negligent/intentional misrepresentation claims. For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the challenged relief sought, Ms. Cohn's breach of contract claim, and her promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance claims based on Penn State's communications concerning her eligibility to graduate. However, the Court denies Penn State's motion to dismiss Ms. Cohn's promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance claims based on Penn State's purported promise to abide by its policies and her misrepresentation claims.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Initially proceeding pro se, Ms. Cohn filed her first complaint and then an amended complaint. Penn State moved to partially dismiss Ms. Cohn's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motion to dismiss concerning Ms. Cohn's claims asserting a violation of Title III of the ADA, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel and denied the motion to dismiss as to her claims alleging intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation and violations of Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Court granted Ms. Cohn leave to amend to try to cure the deficiencies in her First Amended Complaint.

Ms. Cohn has since retained an attorney and filed her Second Amended Complaint asserting a variety of claims against Penn State. They are:

• Count I: Discrimination in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

• Count II: Discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA;

• Count III: Retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; • Count IV: Retaliation in violation of the ADA;

• Count V: Breach of Contract;

• Count VI: Promissory Estoppel;

• Count VII: Negligent Misrepresentation;

• Count VIII: Intentional and/or Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and

• Count IX: Detrimental Reliance.

Ms. Cohn seeks a declaratory judgment stating that Penn State violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act; injunctive and equitable relief prohibiting Penn State from engaging in discriminatory and/or retaliatory practices; compensatory damages for student loans incurred, tuition and living expenses, lost back pay, and lost future pay; punitive damages; attorneys' fees; expert witness fees; and costs. Penn State now moves to partially dismiss Ms. Cohn's Second Amended Complaint.

BACKGROUND

I. Penn State's Physician Assistant Program

Ms. Cohn is an individual with disabilities, namely she suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and anxiety. Ms. Cohn alleges that she is qualified to participate in Penn State's Physician Assistant Program and was accepted into the Program in 2015.

Penn State, a public university and place of public accommodation which receives federal funding, offers a two-year graduate Physician Assistant Program. According to Ms. Cohn, Penn State requires students to complete the Program within 3 years. Each year of enrollment in the Program costs approximately $60,000. Ms. Cohn was enrolled in and attended the Program for approximately 2 ½ years, at an approximate cost of $160,000.

Ms. Cohn asserts that the terms and requirements of the Program are set forth in Penn State's Student Handbook, the Physician Assistant Student Clinical Education Manual, the Program website, Penn State's Financial Aid Satisfactory Academic Policy, and an "academic contract."¹ Sec. Am. Compl. at ¶ 24 (Doc. No. 29). Pursuant to the Program policies, a student must complete 3 semesters of classes during the first year of participation in the Program. Students must then complete 3 semesters of clinical rotations during the second year of the Program. Each semester during the clinical portion of the Program consists of three 5-week long clinical rotations.

Ms. Cohn alleges that the Handbook, the Manual, and the Financial Aid Policy, collectively, provide safeguards to protect students from incurring unnecessary student debt in the event they are unlikely to succeed in the Program. According to Ms. Cohn, the Handbook provides that students are prohibited from proceeding to the clinical year of the Program if they are not in good academic standing. She also alleges that the Handbook states that a student is permitted to take a leave of absence and that Penn State's Academic Review Committee will approve an action plan to assist the student upon his or her return from leave. Ms. Cohn asserts that, pursuant to the Handbook, Penn State must also make grades available on an electronic database so that students are apprised of their academic standing and status.

According to Ms. Cohn, "[t]he Manual is a guide for students to progress through the clinical year of the Program[,]" id. at ¶ 38, which details "the clinical education overview, clinical education policies and procedures, an overview of and expectation for teaching and learning in the clinical setting, and course learning outcomes[,]" Id. at ¶ 39. Ms. Cohn also alleges that theHandbook and the Manual mandate that a student maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average in order to remain in the Program.

According to Ms. Cohn, the Financial Aid Policy governs a student's eligibility to receive federal student aid funds based on satisfactory academic progress. In particular, the policy allegedly prohibits Penn State from disbursing financial aid in the event the student has failed one of his or her courses or is otherwise not in good academic standing. Pursuant to the policy, Penn State purportedly can only issue financial aid to a student in poor academic standing after the student obtains a passing grade in the course that he or she failed.

Ms. Cohn alleges that Penn State made it clear that it expects students enrolled in the Program to adhere to the requirements set forth in the Handbook, Manual, and Financial Aid Policy. In turn, Ms. Cohn alleges that she reasonably believed that Penn State would itself adhere to the mandates of its own policies and procedures.

II. Ms. Cohn's Enrollment in and Progression Through the Academic Portion of the Program²

Ms. Cohn began the Program during the summer 2015 semester. Before beginning her first semester, she notified Penn State of her disabilities, requested reasonable accommodations, and provided the necessary medical documentation. However, Penn State allegedly failed to provide Ms. Cohn with accommodations or to engage in any interactive process with her in an attempt to satisfy her request for accommodations during her first year in the Program.

Due to Penn State's purported failure to accommodate her, Ms. Cohn says she failed one of her courses during the summer 2015 semester, which in turn lowered her grade point average below 3.0. Ms. Cohn alleges that due to the course failure and drop in her grade point average,Penn State's policies barred additional student loans to her until she passed the course she failed and improved her grade point average. Nevertheless, Penn State continued disbursements of Ms. Cohn's student loans. According to Ms. Cohn, she reasonably relied on Penn State's decision to permit her to receive additional student loans when deciding whether to accrue more student loan debt.

Due to what she alleges was Penn State's failure to provide accommodations, Ms. Cohn struggled in the Program during the fall 2015 and spring 2016 semesters as well. Ms. Cohn alleges that, unbeknownst to her, she was not in good academic standing during this time period. Even so, Penn State allowed Ms. Cohn to proceed to the clinical portion of the Program.

III. Ms. Cohn's Enrollment in and Progression Through the Clinical Portion of the Program

Ms. Cohn began the clinical portion of the Program during the summer 2016 semester. Penn State distributed financial aid to Ms. Cohn for the summer 2016, fall 2016, and spring 2017 semesters while she participated in the clinical portion of the Program.

Despite her requests for accommodations for the 2016-2017 academic year, Penn State allegedly again failed to provide Ms. Cohn accommodations during the summer 2016 semester. With no accommodations in place, Ms. Cohn struggled to keep up with the academic requirements set forth in the Handbook and Manual. Penn State then allegedly forced Ms. Cohn to take a leave of absence mid-way through the 2016 summer semester. During her leave of absence, Ms. Cohn was prevented from finishing her...