Former correction officer alleges that DOC required him to keep working while awaiting medical leave approval, then relied on his continued attendance to deny leave.
The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC represents former New York City correction officer Leo P. Roland in a federal lawsuit challenging alleged denial of medical leave, disability discrimination, and retaliation at the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”). Roland filed a second amended class action complaint in Roland v. The City of New York, No. 1:24-cv-04447, seeking relief for himself and proposed classes of correction officers also affected by DOC’s leave-processing and “chronic absent” practices.
The action began on June 23, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The second amended class action complaint was filed on November 9, 2026 and names the City of New York, Sarena Townsend, and Ruben Benitez, with class claims asserted against the City of New York.
This post describes allegations and requested relief. The allegations remain disputed, and the proposed classes require court certification.
Complaint alleges medical leave was denied after instructions to continue working
Roland worked for DOC for approximately eleven years, including more than six years in its Investigation Division. In September 2022, Roland alleges he sought leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for severe knee osteoarthritis. His physician documented substantial limitations and recommended rest, pending clearance and scheduling for knee replacement surgery.
Roland alleges that he submitted supporting medical certification and sought leave from October 1 through December 19, 2022. DOC’s human resources office instructed him not to begin leave without written approval. He continued reporting to work against medical advice because he feared an unauthorized-absence designation, discipline, and additional chronic-absence consequences.
According to the second amended complaint, after informing Roland he could not take leave before receiving official approval, DOC then relied on his continued attendance to deny approval of FMLA, repeatedly insisting it needed revised start dates even though the requested leave period had not ended. Roland alleges the delay prevented treatment and contributed to his forced resignation on November 11, 2022. His resignation form stated: “My FMLA pending was a big factor.”
According to the second amended complaint, after Roland’s resignation, DOC denied his FMLA leave request, citing his continued working status and an asserted failure to provide a start date. The second amended complaint also alleges that DOC failed to consider providing unpaid disability-accommodation leave or discuss responsive alternatives while his FMLA request remained unresolved.
Proposed classes challenge barriers to medical leave and disability accommodations
The second amended complaint seeks certification of proposed classes of correction officers challenging several practices including:
· FMLA leave that was denied, delayed, or withheld because correction officers continued working, did not provide new leave dates while requested leave remained available, or who DOC claims provided insufficient advance notice;
· Failure to provide them with timely notices stating whether requested leave would receive FMLA protection;
· Failure to consider or provide unpaid leave as a disability accommodation alongside, in addition to, or as an alternative to their requests for FMLA leave;
· Failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue required by the New York City Human Rights Law to address accommodation needs and possible alternatives simultaneous with their FMLA leave requests and/or right after their requests were denied, delayed, or withheld;
· Chronic-absence designations or extensions allegedly based on FMLA-protected or disability-related absences and resulting in employment restrictions or other disadvantages.
The proposed groups generally cover qualifying nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory DOC correction officers beginning June 23, 2021, subject to each class’s factual requirements. Several subclasses include officers whom DOC previously medically monitored and later cleared or ordered to return to work before they sought leave for the same condition.
The chronic absence policy and the earlier Fulton lawsuit
According to the second amended complaint, DOC’s policy generally designates uniformed employees as “chronic absent” after twelve counted sick workdays within twelve months, with specified limited exclusions. The designation ordinarily lasts six months after return to duty and can be extended if there are additional counted absences. Alleged consequences for such a designation include heightened medical reporting, home restrictions while on sick leave, and restrictions on transfers, preferred assignments, voluntary overtime, and other employment opportunities. The complaint alleges that the policy disproportionately burdens officers whose disabilities require recurring or extended medical absences.
Roland alleges that DOC counted protected medical absences toward his August 31, 2022 designation. He also alleges that the resulting reporting requirements forced him to appear in person while sciatica left him barely able to walk, aggravating his condition.
A prior proposed class action brought by correction officers Katrina Fulton and Darnell Walcott in January 2020, Fulton v. City of New York, No. 1:20-cv-00144 (E.D.N.Y.), similarly challenged DOC’s sick-leave and chronic-absence policies under the FMLA and disability-discrimination laws, among other claims. That lawsuit settled without resolution of the class issues.
Prior to settlement of only the individuals claims in Fulton, on March 15, 2021, the Fulton court allowed claims against the City, including FMLA interference and retaliation claims, to proceed beyond the pleading stage. In January 2023, the court also ordered production of specified records relevant to proposed class certification, including chronic-absence, accommodation, and overtime information. Neither ruling decided liability or granted class certification.
Roland’s second amended complaint alleges that the earlier Fulton litigation put the City on notice of the challenged practices before his own “chronic absent” designation. It cites the City’s discovery response identifying 7,043 correction officers who had accumulated enough sick reporting to be eligible for chronic-absent status between January 2017 and July 2021.
The Roland second amended complaint also describes DOC records obtained through New York’s Freedom of Information Law concerning the Fulton litigation, which identify 1,345 correction officers on a chronic-absence list, including 347 with recorded end dates on or after June 23, 2021. Matching employee identifiers also connected 48 correction officers on that list with 51 disability-accommodation records. Roland alleges that these records can help identify potentially affected officers and examine whether DOC accounted for known accommodation needs when making its designations.
Individual claims concerning discrimination and jail safety disclosures
Roland, a Black man of Haitian and Puerto Rican ancestry, also alleges discriminatory discipline and assignments, and retaliation for opposing discrimination. The complaint describes a July 2021 private WhatsApp message from Roland to seven colleagues concerning dangerous conditions at Rikers Island, including delayed medical care, inadequate backup, and prolonged intake confinement.
According to the second amended complaint, a colleague circulated the message without Roland’s permission. When it learned of the message, DOC imposed a thirty-day unpaid suspension and permanently transferred Roland from investigative work to inmate-facing jail duties. Roland alleges that White officers who engaged in comparable or more serious conduct received more favorable treatment and that charges against him remained untried for 402 days, through his forced resignation. His individual claims include First Amendment retaliation and equal protection claims against Sarena Townsend and Ruben Benitez.
Alleged retaliation after the lawsuit began
The second amended complaint also challenges DOC’s April 2026 report to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services—sent after he filed this action—classifying Roland’s 2022 separation as misconduct-related. According to the second amended complaint, that report resulted in invalidation of his peace officer basic training certification. Roland alleges that his disciplinary charges were never adjudicated, disputes the separation classification, and contends that the report retaliated against him for pursuing this lawsuit.
Relief requested
Roland seeks reinstatement, restoration of lost pay, benefits, and pension credit, and other relief available under the applicable laws. He also asks the court to require correction of the challenged separation report and steps to remedy the resulting impairment of his peace officer training certification.
For the proposed classes, the complaint seeks changes to DOC’s medical leave processing, required notices, disability-accommodation review, cooperative dialogue, and treatment of protected absences. It also requests correction of unlawful classifications and resulting restrictions, together with monetary relief.
The claims arise under the FMLA, Rehabilitation Act, federal civil rights laws, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The claims and available remedies vary by defendant and proposed class.
Case information
Roland v. The City of New York, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Case No. 1:24-cv-04447 (DLI)(SDE)
Counsel for Plaintiff: The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC