In an employment discrimination action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation act, district court judgment granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's pro se amended complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in concluding that claims under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act cannot be asserted against individuals in their official capacity; 2) plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state reasonable accommodation claims upon which relief can be granted, as both of his claims are legally insufficient; and 3) plaintiff's due process rights were not violated, as he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard before his petition for reinstatement was denied, and a New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 78 post-deprivation hearing.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Argued February 2, 2009
Decided July 9, 2009
Before SACK and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and COTE, District Judge.
Opinion by SACK, Circuit Judge.
For Appellant: Douglas G. Wadler, Law Office of Kenneth Joel Haber, P.C., Rockville, MD.
For Appellee: Marion R. Buchbinder, Assistant Solicitor General, New York, NY.