On June 12, 2026, Plaintiff Drilon Berdynaj (“Plaintiff”) filed an amended class action complaint against the City of New York (“the City”) and several individual defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in Berdynaj v. The City of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-02126.
Most importantly, the amended class action complaint seeks certification of a proposed citywide class that is not limited to employees of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”). The proposed citywide class consists of current City employees who requested a disability accommodation (other than leave) submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, and allegedly had the request denied or not approved, in whole or in part, because of the permanent, indefinite, or no-end-date nature of the disability or requested accommodation.
The amended complaint also adds several new individual defendants to the litigation, including current DCAS Commission Yume Kitasei, previous DCAS Commissioner Louis A. Molina, and DCAS attorney Jakub Kazior.
According to the amended complaint, the challenged issue is whether the City may deny or not approve accommodation requests based on the duration of the disability or accommodation need, instead of conducting an individualized reasonable accommodation review.
The amended complaint also alleges that DCAS’s actions have a special significance because of its role in the City’s equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation structure. The City’s Reasonable Accommodation Procedural Guidelines describe a reasonable accommodation process that includes cooperative dialogue, review of job duties, discussion of potential accommodations, undue hardship analysis, written determinations, appeals, recordkeeping, confidentiality, and defined roles for agency personnel.
The amended complaint further alleges that Citywide Equity and Inclusion (“CEI”) and DCAS play a central role in reasonable accommodation guidance, oversight, training, and support for agency equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) offices. The amended complaint alleges that, because City agencies rely on this structure, the challenged practices have significance beyond one agency.
The amended complaint seeks certification of three proposed classes.
The first proposed class is the Permanent Disability Denial Class. This proposed class is citywide. It concerns current City employees who allegedly had a disability accommodation request (other than for leave) denied or not approved because of the permanent, indefinite, or no-end-date nature of the disability or requested accommodation.
The second proposed class is the Remote Work Request Retaliation Class. This proposed class is DCAS-specific. It concerns current DCAS employees who requested a disability-based remote-work accommodation, submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, and allegedly received certain adverse actions within seventy-five days after requesting, renewing, supplementing, or appealing a disability-based remote-work accommodation request.
The third proposed class is the Medical Inquiry Class. This proposed class is also DCAS-specific. It concerns current DCAS employees who requested a disability accommodation, submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, had a permanent or long-term disability, were initially approved for an accommodation, and were later allegedly asked for additional medical documentation concerning the existence, diagnosis, severity, or continuing validity of the disability as a condition of continuing the accommodation.
According to the amended complaint, Plaintiff Berdynaj has worked for DCAS since approximately September 2018. The amended complaint alleges that he has chronic respiratory and pulmonary conditions requiring ongoing treatment and access to home-based medical equipment.
The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff performed work remotely for years, including after DCAS approved a full-time remote-work reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff alleges that DCAS later denied continued full-time remote work, requested additional documentation, required a fixed return-to-office timeline, and treated the asserted permanent or indefinite nature of the accommodation as part of the basis for denial.
The amended complaint also alleges that Plaintiff experienced adverse employment actions after seeking accommodations and opposing what he believed to be disability discrimination. The alleged actions include a demotion, forced leave usage, denial of interim remote work during review, AWOL designations or threats, revocation of telework, a Section 72 medical examination, involuntary FMLA or medical leave, rejection of medical notes, disciplinary charges, and return-to-work requirements.
The amended complaint further alleges that, after the original federal complaint was filed, DCAS engaged in additional conduct that Plaintiff contends was retaliatory.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief directed at the challenged accommodation practices. Among other requested relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to require lawful individualized reasonable accommodation procedures.
Plaintiff also seeks individual relief, including employment-related equitable relief, restoration of pay, leave, benefits, and other damages and relief available by law.
The amended complaint alleges that the class period for the proposed Permanent Disability Denial Class and the proposed Medical Inquiry Class begins on March 16, 2023, and continues through final judgment. The amended complaint alleges that the class period for the proposed Remote Work Request Retaliation Class begins on September 1, 2022, and continues through final judgment.
A overview of the original complaint can be found here.
The case is Berdynaj v. The City of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-02126, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho. and Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis.
The filed amended complaint is available here.
The amended class action complaint contains allegations only, class certification has not been decided, and the Court has not made any findings on the merits.