The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Files Amended Putative Class Action Complaint Alleging Citywide NYC Disability-Accommodation Practices Affecting Employees With Permanent or Indefinite Disabilities

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.

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 Commissioner 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 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 remote work, 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.

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 and an overview of the original complaint can be found 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.

Pregnant New York Workers Have Greater Potential Accommodation Rights Than Under Federal Law

The recent NY Times article titled "Miscarrying at Work: The Physical Toll of Pregnancy Discrimination" is an important overview of the challenges faced by many pregnant American workers under current federal law.

“It was the worst thing I have ever experienced in my life,” Ms. Hayes said.

Three other women in the warehouse also had miscarriages in 2014, when it was owned by a contractor called New Breed Logistics. Later that year, a larger company, XPO Logistics, bought New Breed and the warehouse. The problems continued. Another woman miscarried there this summer. Then, in August, Ceeadria Walker did, too.

The women had all asked for light duty. Three said they brought in doctors’ notes recommending less taxing workloads and shorter shifts. They said supervisors disregarded the letters. . . . But refusing to accommodate pregnant women is often completely legal. Under federal law, companies don’t necessarily have to adjust pregnant women’s jobs, even when lighter work is available and their doctors send letters urging a reprieve. . . . It says that a company has to accommodate pregnant workers’ requests only if it is already doing so for other employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” (link)

Fortunately, pregnant women working in New York State and New York City (and several other states) have broader protections than under federal law.

“Outside Washington, there have been fewer roadblocks. At least 23 states have passed laws that are stronger than current federal protections.” (link)

For employers with at least four employees, New York and New York City law explicitly requires employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant workers. This right means that, unless the accommodation would imposes what the laws describes as “an undue hardship” on the employer, the employer is legally required to provide an accommodation to a pregnant worker (physically working in New York). Under some circumstances, pregnant workers working for employers in NYC are covered by this law even if the company classifies its workers as independent contractors.

You can find guidance on the New York State pregnancy discrimination law here and the New York City pregnancy discrimination law here.

Because the potential right to a pregnancy accommodation can be a complicated legal question involving a back-and-fourth “interactive process” with the employer, pregnant workers are well-advised to seek legal guidance as soon as possible after becoming pregnant.

Can I Really Sue My Boss Individually in NYC – And What Does That Really Mean?

One important limitation of Title VII, the federal law that protects most employees at most larger companies from discrimination, is that the law only allows employees to hold the company liable.  

So, if an employee brings a claim because of a manager’s harassment under Title VII, only the company will ever have to directly pay an award of damages to the injured employee.  While the court may impose injunctive requirements on the company that affect the individual harasser, these injunctive requirements nonetheless still fall squarely on only the employer’s shoulders.  

For example, if the offending harasser leaves the organization, they will likely no longer be subject to any court-ordered injunctive requirements.

Of course, there may be internal consequences for the harassing supervisor, but any action taken against the harasser will be at the discretion of the company, not necessarily mandated by law.  While companies are usually not thrilled with supervisors who harass employees and cause them to file discrimination lawsuits, inevitably there are exceptions, where even successful lawsuits do not result in an employer fundamentally addressing issues of discrimination.

Given these limitations, technically a sexual harasser could harass many employees, resign when a lawsuit is filed, and leave without directly paying their victim(s) a single cent.

What’s an aggrieved employee to do?

Fortunately, in New York City and New York State, there are protections beyond those provided under Title VII by way of the New York City Human Rights Law  ("NYC Human Rights Law") and the New York State Human Rights Law.  

This post focuses on the unique aspects of the NYC Human Rights Law, one of the most protective anti-discrimination and retaliation statues in the country.

Under the NYC Human Rights Law, employees who meet the definition of a “supervisor” are personally liable for any discrimination they engage in.

You heard correctly.  Your supervisor may be personally liable, out of their own funds, for discrimination, along with a NYC employer.

Many NYC supervisors and other employees are likely surprised to hear this.  Indeed, it is likely that the vast majority of supervisors and other employees are unaware that this is the case in NYC.

This provision should certainly give all current and potential “supervisors” great pause with respect to their conduct in the office.   If their actions result in a lawsuit alleging discrimination or retaliation an employee, perhaps one who has no issue with the larger company -- only the specific supervisor -- could technically decide to only sue the supervisor in their personal capacity.  

While an employee is unlikely to take that route where he or she is not certain the supervisor (as opposed to the employer) could actually satisfy any judgment given their financial resources, this fact is something NYC supervisors are well-advised to keep in mind during their interactions in the workplace.

The protections of the NYC Human Rights Law not only include potential relief against individual supervisors, but, importantly, the standard for discrimination violations is also far more liberal than Title VII, making it much more likely that an employer and/or supervisor will be found liable for discrimination with respect to identical conduct.   

By way of example, in NYC, a supervisor can potentially find themselves liable for an employee’s emotional distress damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs, by making a single harassing discriminatory statement to an employee.  

Each side may then certainly litigate the appropriate amount of emotional distress damages, but, in any event, the employee will, in many  circumstances, have an argument that the employer and/or supervisor are personally liable to them for emotional distress damages.

New York City is not only a unique place to live, it has a uniquely protective regime of anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws  that put employees on, at least, less unequal footing with supervisors when addressing discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.

A cautionary note, however, is that while the NYC Human Rights Law is expansive, it is not limitless.  Every workplace slight is not necessarily discrimination or retaliation, and you should consult with an attorney before assuming you have a potential claim against an employer and/or supervisor merely because you have been treated poorly or unfairly in the workplace.

The NYC Human Rights Law also does not apply to employers with less than five employees.

Recently Pregnant Employees Also Protected From Pregnancy Discrimination For Four Months

Citing recent decisions from within the Second Circuit, New York federal Judge J. Paul Oetken found that protection from pregnancy discrimination extends to include recently pregnant women in addition to pregnant women:

Katherine Albin alleged viable pregnancy discrimination claims against Thomas Pink Inc., its corporate parent LVMH Moet Louis Vuitton Inc., and two supervisors under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and New York state and city law, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said.  It found that the promotion denial may have occurred three and a half months after Albin gave birth to her first child.

Judge J. Paul Oetken cited emerging case law within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that women who are four months or less removed from giving birth are still protected by Title VII's prohibition against pregnancy discrimination."

While observing that at some point after a pregnancy ends protection from pregnancy discrimination also comes to an end:

"[P]regnant women, women who very recently gave birth, and women on maternity leave are unquestionably within the protected class of pregnant persons, 'at some point in time such women are no longer 'affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions' and, thus, are not protected.'" (internal citations omitted) (link)

the court found that protection generally continues for approximately four months after a pregnancy:

"Distinguishing among previously pregnant women to determine who is still affected by pregnancy requires selecting a temporal cutoff based on the facts of the given case.  While ultimately dependent on the factual situation of a specific claim, a pattern has developed in this Circuit establishing a loose line at approximately four months from the date of birth." (internal citations omitted) (link)

In my view, along with age and disability discrimination, pregnancy discrimination is one of the more prevalent forms of discrimination today.  Unlike explicit race and gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination (in its varied forms) does not carry the same heavy stigma and is surprisingly prevalent. 

Unfortunately, although prevalent, it is often unrecognized and/or unreported.

This decision goes a long way to help advance anti-discrimination protections for pregnant and recently pregnant employees.