CUNY Disability Accommodation Lawsuit Adds 15 Individual Defendants, Three Plaintiffs, and Additional Putative Classes

“Expanded proposed class action includes eight current and former employees from six colleges who allege disability-accommodation denials, delays and retaliation.”

Long Island City, New York – The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC has filed an amended federal complaint(opens in new tab) (Levine v. CUNY, No. 1:26-cv-01859) (opens in new tab)adding fifteen individual defendants and three plaintiffs to a proposed class action challenging disability accommodation and leave practices at the City University of New York.

The lawsuit now includes eight current and former faculty and staff members from six CUNY colleges. Their amended complaint alleges that CUNY and other defendants denied or delayed accommodations, made repeated medical-documentation demands and engaged in retaliation. The plaintiffs allege resulting harms including lost pay, depleted leave and job loss.

The amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action was originally filed on March 29, 2026.

This release describes allegations and requests for relief in the filed amended complaint, not court findings. Plaintiffs ask the court to certify the proposed classes. Filing the complaint does not certify a class. Defendants may contest the allegations and requested relief.

Fifteen additional individual defendants

The amended complaint continues to name CUNY, its Board of Trustees, the City of New York and Chancellor Felix V. Matos Rodríguez as defendants. The Chancellor, previously sued only in his official capacity, is now also sued in his individual capacity.

The amendment adds fifteen individual defendants: Ronnie Ursin, Linda Washington-Brown, Anthony E. Munroe, Suzanne M. Miller, Victor Humphrey, Sandra C. Gordon, Patricia A. Cody, Justin Vázquez-Poritz, Patrick Corbett, Gila Rohr, Avery Mullen, Blerina Likollari, Sandy Lujan, Dori J. Rubin and Tanya Myers. Each is sued in an individual capacity. The allegations, claims and requested remedies vary by plaintiff and defendant.

Challenged practices across six colleges

The eight plaintiffs are current or former employees of Queensborough Community College, Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, Hostos Community College, the College of Staten Island and New York City College of Technology.

The complaint challenges alleged failures to accommodate disabilities, rigid onsite requirements, repeated medical reviews and accommodation approvals allegedly left unimplemented. Several plaintiffs allege that existing online courses, digital systems or remote arrangements would have allowed them to continue performing their duties with effective accommodations.

Expanded proposed classes address repeated medical demands, remote-work barriers and retaliation

The amended complaint adds a proposed subclass for employees who, according to the complaint, were required to obtain renewed provider certification of permanent or chronic conditions when an approval period ended, without an identified change in their condition, duties or requested accommodation, or a deficiency in existing documentation. A separate proposed subclass challenges semester-by-semester and other fixed, non-individualized approval limits despite documented longer-term needs.

Another new proposed subclass concerns alleged failures to implement written approval for fully remote work, including subsequent onsite assignments or withheld teaching workload based on required physical presence. A separate proposed subclass challenges an alleged categorical refusal to consider disability-related commuting limitations when evaluating remote-work requests.

One new proposed class concerns employees who previously received remote-work disability accommodations in the same positions after February 28, 2022, but whose later written, medically supported requests remained pending without approval for more than sixty consecutive days, even though no equipment needed to be ordered.

Additional proposed classes challenge alleged paperwork barriers, including requiring designated medical forms despite existing provider documentation without identifying missing information, and requiring providers to identify an essential job function an employee cannot perform before considering an accommodation request. Another proposed class concerns medical-release provisions combined with hold-harmless agreements covering those supplying medical information, which plaintiffs allege were presented for signature without informing employees of alternative ways to substantiate their requests.

The lawsuit also retains proposed classes addressing remote-work denials, accommodation delays and disability-accommodation leave requests allegedly diverted into other procedures. Its proposed remote-accommodation retaliation class addresses alleged forced leave, lost pay, reduced assignments, termination and non-reappointment within sixty days of specified accommodation-related activity. Its proposed Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation class concerns qualifying employees notified of, or subjected to, termination or non-reappointment within sixty days of requesting, using or receiving approval for qualifying FMLA leave. A new proposed community-college class challenges categorical onsite-attendance and one-in-person-course requirements allegedly applied instead of individualized accommodation review.

Altogether, the amendment expands the proposed class structure from eight to nineteen classes and subclasses. The proposed groups encompass qualifying current and former non-managerial CUNY employees beyond the six colleges represented by the named plaintiffs. The proposed class period begins March 29, 2023, subject to each group’s specific membership requirements. Plaintiffs seek court orders changing the challenged practices. The classes remain proposed, and the allegations are not court findings.

Three additional plaintiffs

Dean DeRenzo, who worked at the College of Staten Island for approximately ten years, alleges that his previously approved remote work was reduced and onsite arrangements did not address his mobility limitations. According to the complaint, he received a notice terminating his employment effective immediately on June 30, 2026, seven days after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge and five days after requesting an internal investigation. He alleges that the termination was retaliatory.

Cia Kessler, an instructional designer who helps faculty design courses, develop online learning materials, and use digital teaching tools at Kingsborough Community College, alleges that a temporary schedule allowing two remote days per week did not meet her disability-related needs. She initially requested three remote days and later sought five, providing additional medical support for the new request. She alleges that her work largely involved digital faculty support and instructional design, yet she was forced to use sick leave during periods when she could have worked remotely had the college approved the requested arrangement.

Bonnie Miles, a Borough of Manhattan Community College office assistant at the Manhattan Educational Opportunity Center, alleges that the college’s human resources office required renewed paperwork after approximately three years under an approved hybrid schedule. The complaint states that her schedule allowing three remote days per week was renewed effective August 31, 2026, but that requests for scheduling flexibility, symptom-management breaks and meeting access remained unresolved. She also alleges interference with approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The five original plaintiffs

Robin Levine, who worked at Queensborough Community College for more than twenty years, alleges that officials denied additional remote work during her recovery from surgery, despite her successful performance of Registrar’s Office duties remotely in earlier periods. According to the complaint, she sought two additional remote days per week for approximately six remaining summer weeks. She alleges that the denial and directive to return onsite forced her retirement in August 2023.

Noreen Mulvanerty, a former assistant professor of pediatric nursing at Borough of Manhattan Community College, alleges that officials failed to provide a full teaching workload compatible with her approved remote-work accommodation, despite available remote assignments. She alleges that officials then relied on the resulting workload shortfall and her absence from hospital clinical work in denying her reappointment. She also alleges that officials declined to consider additional medical leave as a disability accommodation, although she received unprotected non-FMLA medical leave.

Shavone Sease, a longtime Kingsborough Community College Registrar’s Office employee, alleges repeated express and constructive denials of disability accommodations, including fully remote work, an effective enclosed workspace, and modified hours. She alleges that proposed onsite measures were inadequate and that fully remote work was denied despite her demonstrated ability to perform scheduling and related duties remotely through existing college systems. The complaint identifies a 106-day review of her modified-schedule request, a separate 97-day wait for an accommodation-appeal decision, and a renewed remote-work request that remained unresolved for at least 106 days, from July 2 through October 16, 2026. She alleges that, while awaiting requested disability accommodations, she remained required to work onsite under conditions that aggravated her disabilities or use leave instead.

Malik Sullivan, a former Registrar’s Office employee at Hostos Community College, alleges that the college denied his request for six months of fully remote work despite his prior successful remote work during the pandemic. He alleges that the modified hours and partial remote-work schedules he received provided some benefit but did not adequately address his disability-related limitations. He further alleges that his March 27, 2023 request for additional disability-related medical leave remained pending when he received a non-reappointment notice on March 29, 2023. He alleges disability discrimination and retaliation related to his accommodation and FMLA leave requests and discrimination complaints.

Lucas Kwong, a tenured associate professor of English at New York City College of Technology, alleges prolonged delays and restrictions on disability-related remote teaching and other faculty duties. Although he eventually received remote-teaching relief, the complaint alleges constructive accommodation denials, including a 65-day wait for a fully asynchronous teaching schedule and a 143-day wait before partial teaching relief. He further alleges that requests to perform peer observations, attend meetings, and fulfill other service duties remotely were denied or remained unresolved. He also challenges as unlawful semester-by-semester reapplication and renewed medical-documentation requirements despite his documented permanent conditions, and alleges that City Tech required closure of his internal discrimination complaint during his accommodation appeal, although later refiling was permitted.

CASE INFORMATION 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Levine et al v. The City University of New York et al.
Case No. al 1:26-cv-01859
Case File: Filed Amended Complaint (PDF)

SOURCE: The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Seeks Partial Summary Judgment Against The Legal Aid Society Over Denials of Marissa Kubicki’s Disability Accommodation Request

On October 14, 2026, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC filed a motion for partial summary judgment on behalf of Marissa Kubicki in her disability accommodation lawsuit against The Legal Aid Society. The motion asks the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to hold Legal Aid liable on her individual failure-to-accommodate claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15).

This article summarizes Ms. Kubicki’s filed submissions and legal arguments, not findings by the Court. Legal Aid disputes liability and has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The request at the center of the motion was straightforward. According to Ms. Kubicki’s submissions, she was not asking for additional work-from-home days or permission to stop attending court. She merely sought to continue the same approach to court coverage she had successfully used for more than two years: working from Legal Aid’s own office across the street from the Bronx courthouse and attending court whenever a client, attorney, hearing, or emergency actually required her presence.

The motion argues that Legal Aid’s written denials, constructive denial, performance evaluations, workplace records, and Ms. Kubicki’s prior successful use of the same office-based court-coverage arrangement, together with supporting declarations, establish that it unlawfully refused an accommodation that would have allowed Ms. Kubicki to protect her health while continuing to serve clients.

A Request to Continue Working as Before, Not Additional Work-From-Home Days

Ms. Kubicki is a Licensed Master Social Worker who began working for Legal Aid in 2019 and joined its Parole Revocation Defense Unit in 2023. Her job responsibilities included client interviews, assessments, mitigation, referrals, attorney consultation, and court advocacy.

Ms. Kubicki has been diagnosed with a condition called ankylosing spondylitis and was receiving immunosuppressive treatment when she submitted her accommodation request to Legal Aid. On November 24, 2025, she provided Legal Aid medical documentation supporting limits on unnecessary courthouse exposure while preserving necessary court attendance.

Legal Aid had already approved a hybrid schedule and other accommodations, and Ms. Kubicki was not requesting additional remote work days. Rather, this request concerned where she would work during her existing in-person days.

Her proposed arrangement would have used her assigned, already-equipped Legal Aid office, which was an approximately five-minute walk to the courthouse, rather than working within the courthouse when she did not have responsibilities requiring her presence in court, as she had previously done for two years. According to her submissions, Ms. Kubicki would have remained available through existing telephone, email, and Microsoft Teams communications and continued to prioritize court needs.

She did not request different hours, additional staff, a new position, or reassignment of her clients and court responsibilities.

An Oral Denial Followed by Two Written DENIALS

The motion focuses on two written refusals by Legal Aid to provide the requested interim accommodation while it continued reviewing Ms. Kubicki’s request. Those refusals followed an earlier oral denial. According to Ms. Kubicki’s declaration, at a December 26, 2025 meeting attended by union delegate Hayley Feldman, Legal Aid’s Senior Employee Relations Specialist, Laura Walsh, told her that her request to work from Legal Aid’s office across the street and attend court as needed was being denied.

On January 12, 2026, Legal Aid’s then-Chief Human Resources Officer, Connie Park, wrote to Ms. Kubicki: “The interim request to remain in the LAS office until requested in court, rather than working from the court location, is not approved.” The email also stated that Legal Aid needed additional information to evaluate the requested accommodation or potential alternatives.

On January 20, 2026, Park reaffirmed in writing that the interim accommodation “was denied and remains so,” citing management’s position that in-person court coverage was an essential function. Ms. Kubicki’s motion challenges those refusals because her proposed arrangement preserved necessary court attendance while allowing her to work from Legal Aid’s nearby office between court needs.

Legal Aid’s Own Evaluations and Prior Workplace Practices Support the Motion

The motion argues that Ms. Kubicki’s proposed arrangement was grounded in actual workplace experience, not speculation about whether the job could be performed differently.

Ms. Kubicki’s declaration describes an established practice of working from the office between court needs and responding when assistance was required. A supporting declaration from former Bronx Parole Revocation Defense Unit social worker Luca Verano Diaz describes the same approach, including prioritizing court requests while performing other assigned work from the office.

Legal Aid’s own performance evaluations are also central to Ms. Kubicki’s argument.

Ms. Kubicki’s March 2025 evaluation, which discussed her work with accommodations already in place, stated that “her work has not been impacted.” It credited her communication and collaboration with colleagues, availability for referrals, and management of her workload.

Ms. Kubicki relies on those evaluations, together with the evidence of prior office-based court coverage, to challenge the contention that her proposed arrangement was incompatible with effective client service.

The motion draws a distinction between performing essential court services and remaining physically in the courthouse when no identified task requires an employee to be there. Ms. Kubicki argues that she sought to continue her prior practice of remaining available from Legal Aid’s office between court needs, not to change the responsibilities she was required to fulfill.

The Motion Challenges Legal Aid’s Essential-Functions and Undue-Hardship Defenses

Ms. Kubicki’s motion argues that Legal Aid cannot show that the proposed accommodation would have prevented her from meeting the essential requirements of her job or imposed an undue hardship on Legal Aid.

It emphasizes that the requested accommodation would have utilized existing office, equipment, and communication systems, the office’s proximity to the courthouse, and Ms. Kubicki’s continued responsibility for her hours, caseload, and necessary court attendance.

The motion argues that the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability supports Ms. Kubicki’s accommodation claim. Its “Leave, Scheduling, and Remote Work” section explains that the mere fact an employee would work outside the physical office “generally will not be sufficient to support an undue hardship defense.” Rather than relying on blanket remote-work restrictions, employers must engage in a cooperative dialogue and individually assess whether the employee’s specific tasks can be performed remotely or another accommodation would meet the employee’s needs. The employer must identify why that particular employee’s absence would create undue hardship in relation to the position’s essential duties, or show that it offered another accommodation meeting the employee’s needs. N.Y.C. Comm’n on Hum. Rts., Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability pt. II(A)(iii)(d), at 56–57 (Dec. 2025).

The motion further argues that the guidance supports evaluating Ms. Kubicki’s actual work practices, rather than treating Legal Aid’s characterization of courthouse presence as conclusive. The guidance requires a fact-specific inquiry into both the employer’s description of the position and “how the job is actually performed in practice.” A written job description is relevant, but does not conclusively establish which duties are essential. Id. pt. II(A)(iv)(b), at 61–62.

The motion also rejects the proposition that by continuing to discuss an accommodation, an employer can be excused for failing to provide one. It asserts that City law expressly states that compliance with the cooperative-dialogue requirement is not a defense to a failure-to-accommodate claim. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(28)(f).

Later Accommodation Proposals Do Not Resolve the Earlier Denials, Ms. Kubicki Argues

According to Ms. Kubicki’s motion papers, on March 6, 2026, 102 calendar days after she requested the accommodation on November 24, 2025, Legal Aid proposed replacing preliminary courthouse visits with Teams messages to limit her in-person court time to that required to address client needs. The papers also state that Ms. Kubicki had begun medical leave on February 2, 2026, on her physician’s recommendation and remained on leave when Legal Aid made the March 6 proposal.

Ms. Kubicki argues that neither the March 6 proposal nor Legal Aid’s earlier alternative proposal erase the January written refusals or resolve whether Legal Aid unlawfully withheld an effective accommodation during the periods challenged in her motion.

What the Partial Summary Judgment Motion Seeks

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may resolve a claim or part of a claim without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ms. Kubicki argues that the submitted evidence meets that standard for Legal Aid’s liability on her individual New York City Human Rights Law accommodation claim. Alternatively, she asks the Court to resolve particular issues or establish material facts for the remaining litigation.

The motion does not seek a damages award, a determination of medical causation, class certification, class-wide liability, or judgment against the other defendants. Those matters are reserved.

The Broader Legal Aid Society Disability Accommodation Lawsuit

As described in the firm’s earlier overview of the Legal Aid Society disability accommodation class action, the litigation challenges alleged practices extending beyond Ms. Kubicki’s individual request.

The amended complaint alleges denials of location-related accommodations, delays without effective interim protection, unnecessary demands for additional medical documentation, and retaliation involving changes or recharacterizations of job requirements after accommodation requests. It seeks class-wide changes to the challenged practices.

The partial summary judgment motion asks the Court only to decide Legal Aid’s responsibility for the specific accommodation refusals and related delay addressed in Ms. Kubicki’s individual claim.

The case is Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society et al., No. 1:26-cv-03882-VSB-OTW, before U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick and U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice of motion appears at ECF No. 68, the statement of material facts at ECF No. 71, and the supporting memorandum at ECF No. 72. The amended complaint is available here.

The Dugger Law Firm Filed a Putative Class Action Challenging NYC’s Alleged Disability Accommodation Denials, Retaliation for Remote-Work Requests, and Medical Inquiry Violations at DCAS

Plaintiff Drilon Berdynaj (“Plaintiff”) has worked for the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”) since approximately September 2018, in Real Estate Services within its Design & Project Management unit.

On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the City of New York (“Defendant” or the “City”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The putative class action complaint alleges that, despite DCAS’s citywide role for providing equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation guidance to city agencies, DCAS itself violated disability accommodation rights in its treatment of its own employees.

The putative class action complaint’s allegations include alleged policies of: (1) denying disability-based accommodation requests because the disability and/or the requested accommodation was characterized as permanent or indefinite, or lacking a fixed end date; (2) retaliating against employees who requested disability-based remote work accommodations; and (3) repeatedly demanding unnecessary additional medical documentation from employees with permanent or long-term disabilities whose disability accommodations had previously been approved.

According to the putative class action complaint, Plaintiff initially requested and received a full-time remote work accommodation, and successfully performed his job remotely for years.

The putative class action complaint alleges that, DCAS later reversed course and denied his disability-based remote work accommodation, demanded additional unnecessary medical documentation and a “date certain” to return to the office, and stated that “reasonable accommodations are typically not permanent or indefinite.” The putative class action complaint further alleges that the City retaliated against Plaintiff through, instead of continuing his disability-based remote work accommodation, imposed forced use of leave, an AWOL designation, disciplinary charges, a Section 72 medical examination, and a September 12, 2025 involuntary FMLA designation.

The putative class action complaint further alleges that DCAS demoted Plaintiff on September 15, 2022, one day after he renewed his original accommodation request.

The putative class action complaint further alleges that, in March 2026, while Plaintiff remained out of work on involuntary leave, the City initially told him that he could only return to work if his doctor stated that he could return “full duty” or “without restrictions.” The putative class action complaint alleges that this stated requirement, like the earlier accommodation denials and documentation demands, was part of the same broader unlawful accommodation and retaliation practices challenged in the case.

The putative class action complaint asserts individual and class claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act on behalf of the proposed classes and an individual FMLA interference claim on behalf of Plaintiff.

Among other requested relief, the putative class complaint seeks class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring lawful, timely, and individualized accommodation procedures, limits on unnecessary medical-document demands, reclassification of unlawfully categorized unauthorized absences or AWOL, correction of adverse personnel records, and anti-retaliation relief.

For Berdynaj individually, the putative class complaint seeks reinstatement to his current position or pre-demotion position, or an equivalent role, grant of a fully remote disability accommodation, back pay, front pay, restoration of leave and benefits, removal of AWOL status, restoration of depleted leave banks, nominal damages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

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 Court Judge Dale E. Ho. and Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis. The filed complaint is available here.. The complaint contains allegations only, and the Court has not made any findings on the merits.

The Dugger Law Firm Has Filed a Disability Discrimination Class Action on Behalf of Professor Jan Ramjerdi and a Class of CUNY Faculty Challenging Denials of Remote Work Accommodations and FMLA Leave

Plaintiff Professor Ramjerdi (“Plaintiff”) has served as a tenured Associate Professor of English at Queensborough Community College (“QCC”) since September 1, 2009, and has taught at QCC since 2003.

On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the City of New York (“NYC”), the City University of New York (“CUNY”), QCC, CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez (in his official capacity), QCC President Christine Mangino, QCC Human Resources Director Martha Aspromatis, QCC Human Resources Director for Benefits Ysabel Macea, QCC ADA Compliance Coordinator/Assistant Vice President for Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Amaris Matos, and former QCC Interim Executive Director for Human Resources Sangeeta Noel (collectively, “Defendants”).

The class action complaint’s allegations include an alleged policy, pattern, and/or practice of: (1) illegal denials of mental health disability-based fully remote work accommodation requests by full-time faculty; (2) illegal denials of requests for FMLA leave by full-time faculty based on a pending disability-based accommodation request and/or the permanent nature of the disability or serious health condition; (3) retaliation against full-time faculty for requesting disability-based fully remote work accommodations and/or FMLA leave; (4) an illegal medical separation policy that permitted the separation of full-time faculty without consideration or evaluation of their entitlement to a disability-based reasonable accommodation; and (5) illegal provision of unprotected “general accommodations” of fully remote work instead of protected disability-based accommodations, among other challenged practices alleged to violate the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA, and/or New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).

The class action complaint alleges that all, or almost all, CUNY faculty taught fully remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic, from mid-March 2020 through the spring 2021 semester (approximately three academic semesters). The class action complaint additionally alleges that, for the spring 2022 semester, CUNY announced a 70/30 In-Person/Remote policy requiring 70% in-person courses and 30% remote courses, including that, “[a]side from unusual circumstances, all full-time faculty members should teach at least one in-person course on campus.”  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants repeatedly illegally denied Plaintiff’s, and a class of full-time faculty members’, requests for mental health disability-based fully remote work accommodations because of the 70/30 In-Person/Remote policy.

The class action complaint further alleges that, after initially filing pretextual and/or retaliatory disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, NYC, CUNY, and/or QCC applied their medical separation policy to medically separate Plaintiff in furtherance of their retaliation and/or discrimination.  The class action complaint alleges that they did so by circularly relying on the very mental health disabilities that Plaintiff had sought a fully remote work accommodation and FMLA leave to address, as the primary basis for Plaintiff’s medical separation. The class action complaint alleges that this medical separation policy was a policy, practice, and/or standard operating procedure of NYC, CUNY, and/or QCC of failure to accommodate disabilities, retaliation for requesting a fully remote work accommodations and/or FMLA leave, and interference with disability and/or FMLA rights.

The class action complaint additionally alleges disparate impact violations, violations of FMLA notice rights, and Rehabilitation Act medical inquiry violations.

The fifteen-count class action complaint seeks, from some or all Defendants, back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement, compensatory damages, nominal damages, actual damages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages against the QCC individual defendants sued in their individual capacities.

Plaintiff’s requested class-wide injunctive relief seeks an injunction: (1) prospectively exempting disability-based fully remote work requests from the 70/30 In-Person/Remote Policy; (2) requiring the creation and funding of an independent office and/or ombudsman to objectively evaluate all disability-based remote work requests and FMLA leave requests; (3) requiring the re-evaluation of all disability-based remote work requests and FMLA leave requests within the last three years by an independent office and/or ombudsman; (4) reinstatement of all class members terminated or medically separated because of an illegal denial of a disability-based fully remote work accommodation and/or FMLA leave request; and (5) reclassification of time illegally categorized as an unauthorized absence as a protected authorized absence, under the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA and/or NYCHRL.

The case is Ramjerdi v. The City of New York, et al., No. 1:24-cv-03380-NGG-RML and is before U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Press release is available here. Media Contact: Cyrus E. Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC - (646) 560-3208 - cd@theduggerlawfirm.com.

CVS Store Detectives File Race Discrimination Class Action Alleging Forced Racial Profiling of Black and Latino Shoppers

As reported in the NY Times:

"Four former store detectives employed by CVS in New York filed a class-action lawsuit against the drugstore chain on Wednesday, accusing their bosses of ordering them to target black and Hispanic shoppers.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, also alleged that the detectives were fired after they complained about racial discrimination, against both customers and themselves.

The plaintiffs, all of whom are either black or Hispanic, contend in their suit that two supervisors in CVS’s loss-prevention department, overseeing stores in Manhattan and Queens, regularly told them to racially profile nonwhite shoppers. The suit says that one of the supervisors, Anthony Salvatore, routinely told subordinates that “black people always are the ones that are the thieves,” and that “lots of Hispanic people steal.” The second supervisor, Abdul Selene, frequently advised detectives, known at CVS as market investigators, to “watch the black and Hispanic people to catch more cases,” the suit said." (keep reading)

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Has Filed a Sex Discrimination Class Action Against the NYC Department of Education, Principal Rashaunda Shaw, Ast. Principal Dayne McLean, and Ast. Principal Sharon Spann

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and The Law Office of Daniela Nanau, P.C. have filed a sex discrimination class action lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education, Globe School for Environmental Research (“Globe”) Principal Rashaunda Shaw, Globe Assistant Principal Dayne McLean, and Globe Assistant Principal Sharon Spann. 

Plaintiff Lisa B. Deleo alleges violations of Title VII, the New York City Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The amended complaint alleges that Assistant Principal McLean repeatedly sexually harassed Ms. DeLeo, culminating in a confrontation in which Assistant Principal McLean sexually gyrated in front of Ms. DeLeo while she was alone in her office.  In addition, the amended complaint alleges that, following Ms. DeLeo’s complaints of harassment, the New York City Department of Education, Principal Shaw, Assistant Principal McLean, and Assistant Principal Spann retaliated against her because of her complaints.

The amended complaint also alleges that the New York City Department of Education, Principal Shaw, Assistant Principal McLean, and Assistant Principal Spann have created and/or permitted a sexually hostile and retaliatory hostile work environment for non-management female employees at Globe.

Ms. DeLeo seeks certification of a class of all non-management female employees at Globe, from January 2012 through the resolution of the lawsuit, against the New York City Department of Education, as well as Principal Shaw, Assistant Principal McLean, and Assistant Principal Spann in their individual capacities. 

The case is Deleo v. New York City Department of Education, No. 15 Civ. 00591, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

SDNY Courts Converging Around Liability Only Class Certification?

From David M. McMillan:

In what appears to be an increasingly common practice since the Supreme Court decided Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013), the Southern District of New York recently certified a class as to liability, but rejected certification as to damages.  Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., — F.R.D. —-, 2014 WL 4840752, 09-3701 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014).  Taking a cue from Comcast, the Court held that the predominance requirement for class certification—that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)—requires plaintiffs to specify a damages methodology that can be utilized for the entire class.  The plaintiffs, investors in certain mortgage-backed securities issued by JP Morgan Chase & Co. and related entities (collectively "JPM"), failed to adequately specify the methodology they planned to use to value the securities at issue.  The Court therefore rejected certification as to damages and placed responsibility on each class member to prove damages on a member-by-member basis.  The Court, however, found that the plaintiffs proved predominance as to liability and certified the class for that limited purpose. (continue reading).