Nicole Costin, both individually and on behalf of her minor son, sued Glens Falls Hospital and several of its individual doctors, nurses, and social workers. Costin alleges that the Hospital discriminated against her on the basis of her substance-abuse disorder in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Costin also alleges state-law claims. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (D’Agostino, J.) dismissed Costin’s action; the district court concluded that Costin failed to plausibly allege that she was discriminated against by reason of her disability. And, having dismissed Costin’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. We AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. DENNIS JACOBS, C.J. Nicole Costin, both individually and on behalf of her minor son (“Baby A”), sues Glens Falls Hospital (the “Hospital”) and several of its individual doctors, nurses, and social workers (collectively with the Hospital, the “Defendants”). Most relevant to this appeal, Costin alleges that the Hospital discriminated against her on the basis of her substance-abuse disorder in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. §794. Several state-law claims are also alleged against various Defendants, including claims for, inter alia, medical malpractice, negligence, and false imprisonment. According to the Amended Complaint, Costin went to the Hospital to give birth and, when one or more of the Defendants learned that she takes a drug to control her substance-abuse disorder, measures were taken, driven by stereotype or Hospital policy (or both), to: (1) conduct drug tests without informed consent; (2) report Costin to the New York State Child Abuse and Maltreatment Register pursuant to a drug test Defendants were aware produced a false positive result; (3) withhold pain relief; (4) accelerate Costin’s labor without consent; (5) keep Costin and Baby A in the Hospital; (6) refuse to explain alternative treatments available to Baby A; and (7) refuse to correct the Hospital’s actions. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (D’Agostino, J.) dismissed Costin’s action; the district court concluded that Costin failed to state a claim under both the ADA and RA because she failed to plausibly allege that she was discriminated against by reason of her disability: substance-abuse disorder. And, having dismissed Costin’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. A. When Costin’s water broke in March 2021, she was met at the Hospital by Nurse Stacy Ralph.1 Nurse Ralph and Costin discussed her medical history and birth plan, including Costin’s wish for an epidural injection. When asked what medications she was taking, Costin responded that she takes Subutex twice a day (as prescribed by her primary care physician). Subutex, like related medication Suboxone, is used to treat individuals with substance-abuse disorder. Notwithstanding her treatment with Subutex and rehabilitation, Costin “still has substance abuse disorder[,]” but she “ is no longer using illicit opioids.” A26 (Am. Compl. 29). After a change in shift, Nurse Ralph informed the incoming nurse, Nurse Karen Ranttila, that Costin was taking Subutex. Nurse Ralph also advised that the Hospital was awaiting the results from a urine-toxicology screen, a test that Costin was not informed about and did not consent to. As Costin’s labor resulted in intense contractions that caused her to go “in and out of consciousness[,]” she asked Nurse Ranttila to prepare her epidural shot; Nurse Ranttila responded that the Hospital’s anesthesiologist was on call and that she would contact him to start the epidural process. A27-28 (Am. Compl. 33). Over the next hour, Costin’s contractions intensified, but she did not receive an epidural. At one point, Nurse Midwife Nicole Bennett entered Costin’s hospital room and “blurted” out, “[y]our urine test came back with positive results for both cocaine and PCP.” A28 (Am. Compl. 34). Costin “immediately informed everyone in the room that the positive results were wrong, she did not take cocaine or PCP during her pregnancy, and the [H]ospital must have made an error in the lab or tested the wrong patient’s urine.” Id. Costin asked Nurse Ranttila to immediately redo the urine test or to conduct a blood test, and Costin continued to “beg” for an epidural. A28 (Am. Compl.
34-35). As Nurse Ranttila collected a second urine sample, she asked Costin if she was “sure [she] didn’t do cocaine before coming in?” A28 (Am. Compl. 35) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nurse Ranttila also stated that (1) the Hospital “drug tests pregnant women who take Suboxone or Subutex ‘all the time’”; and (2) the Hospital “compares Subutex patients’ prescribed dosage against the levels in their system to try to determine whether they are illegally selling their pills.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Approximately one hour later, Nurse Midwife Bennett informed Costin that her second urine sample tested negative for all substances. Nurse Ranttila informed Costin that the Hospital was withholding the epidural. Hospital staff then connected a bag of fluids to Costin’s IV drip. Costin again asked for an epidural, but Nurse Ranttila informed Costin that the bag of fluids contained Pitocin (a drug given to accelerate labor) and that the Hospital staff were waiting for her to finish receiving the fluids. Although Costin continued to ask for an epidural and did not want to accelerate her labor, Hospital staff refused to administer pain relief, ignored her request to withhold the Pitocin, and proceeded with inducing labor. When Baby A was born later that evening, he had a bruised face, burst blood vessels in both eyes, and severe jaundice, attributable to the “violent nature” of his birth. A29-31 (Am. Compl.
