The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Files Preliminary Injunction Motion Seeking New York City Employee Drilon Berdynaj’s Return to Paid Work in Disability-Accommodation Case

PRESS RELEASE: The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Files Motion Against New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services For An Employment Disability-Accommodation Case

“Motion alleges involuntary unpaid leave, loss of health coverage, and post-lawsuit termination pressure. A recent amended complaint broadened one proposed permanent disability class from DCAS employees to current employees across the City workforce.”

NEW YORK, N.Y., August 4, 2026. On August 3, 2026, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Drilon Berdynaj, a Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”) employee who has worked for the agency since 2018.

The filing asks for limited interim relief while Berdynaj’s disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, retaliation, and interference claims are litigated. It asks the Court to stop the City from keeping him on involuntary medical leave, blocking his return to paid work, or requiring a “full duty” or “without restrictions” medical note as a condition of return. It also seeks to prohibit the City from excluding him from the two remote-work days generally available under his unit’s telework policy. The motion further asks the Court to temporarily prohibit final termination on the challenged disciplinary charges while his related claims are adjudicated. It also asks the Court to prohibit the City from conditioning any withdrawal or reduction of the charges on withdrawal of the lawsuit or his accommodation requests.

The motion states that the requested order would preserve Berdynaj’s employment and access to medical care without deciding the merits of the case. It would leave DCAS free to supervise his work, assign projects and site visits, enforce neutral workplace rules, and address any independently supported misconduct through lawful means.

The allegations summarized in this release are drawn from filed court papers. Defendants may contest them, and the Court has not ruled on the motion or certified any proposed class.

BACKGROUND: PRIOR ACCOMMODATION APPROVALS FOLLOWED BY LATER DENIAL

In his accompanying declaration, Berdynaj states that his job is primarily project-management work performed through computer systems, telephone calls, email, document review, and meetings, with intermittent assigned site visits.

The filing states that Berdynaj has chronic respiratory disabilities that require multiple daily airway-clearance and nebulizer treatments. According to the motion, DCAS approved full-time remote work in 2021 and again approved remote work with required site visits on May 9, 2023. The May 2023 determination expressly found that the arrangement would not impose an undue hardship. The filing alleges that Berdynaj performed successfully under those arrangements and that DCAS later reversed course without identifying a material change in his duties, his performance, or the agency’s operations.

INVOLUNTARY LEAVE AND LOST COVERAGE ALLEGATIONS

The motion alleges that on May 19, 2025, after DCAS directed Berdynaj to report in person three days each week, he renewed his accommodation request with additional medical documentation and received a denial approximately seventeen minutes later. The filing alleges that DCAS directed Berdynaj to use available leave if he could not report in person and that he thereafter had to use and deplete accrued sick and annual leave on required office days. It further alleges that DCAS later revoked his remaining telework and placed him on unrequested FMLA and medical leave rather than allow him to continue working with an accommodation.

The filing states that Berdynaj entered unpaid status on March 9, 2026. It also states that he offered on April 27, 2026 to return temporarily for three in-office days each week while continuing to litigate his request for full-time remote work, but Human Resources still barred his return without a “full duty” or “without restrictions” medical note. Berdynaj’s declaration states that he has received no salary since approximately March 9, 2026 and that he was notified on July 22, 2026, that his employment-based health coverage had been canceled effective July 11, 2026. The filing further states that he is the primary provider for his wife and three young children and that the forced leave and prolonged loss of income have caused mounting debt, severe household strain, and loss of healthcare coverage. The motion also highlights that DCAS identified an August 31, 2026 return-or-resign deadline in its unrequested leave notice to Berdynaj.

THE FILING’S POST-LAWSUIT DISCIPLINE ALLEGATIONS

The filing describes a sequence that Berdynaj alleges supports his retaliation and interference claims.

It alleges that DCAS first transmitted unsigned “proposed disciplinary charges” through Berdynaj’s union representative in January 2026, then transmitted signed charges dated March 25, 2026, nine days after he filed the federal action. His declaration further states that a copy of the charges was taped in plain view to the front door of his family home on March 28, 2026, after earlier electronic transmission and mailing.

Berdynaj states in his sworn declaration that he understood agency counsel at the April 30 conference to link any outcome short of termination or resignation to his return under the ordinary three-day in-office schedule and dismissal of the lawsuit. The filing further alleges that DCAS announced termination as its recommended penalty on April 30 and confirmed in writing on May 5 that it sought termination pursuant to the charges, after the federal action was filed. Berdynaj alleges that this sequence supports his retaliation and interference claims.

The proposed injunction would not award Berdynaj a permanent accommodation. It would prevent the City from requiring a restriction-free return to work, permit at least the two remote days generally available in his unit, and pause the challenged termination track while the claims based on the charges are adjudicated. The filing identifies potential accommodations including a private treatment space, workplace-dedicated respiratory equipment, assignments closer to his home, or reassignment to a comparable vacant position if his current role cannot be accommodated without an undue hardship.

ONE PROPOSED CITYWIDE DISABILITY CLASS

The June 12, 2026 amended complaint broadened the proposed Permanent Disability Denial Class from current DCAS employees to current employees across the City workforce. The proposed class covers current City employees who submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form and whose non-leave accommodation request was denied or not approved in writing, in whole or in part, because the disability or requested accommodation was permanent, indefinite, or had no end date.

The amended complaint alleges that Citywide Equity and Inclusion within DCAS plays a central role in setting and administering equal-employment and reasonable-accommodation standards across City agencies. It seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting categorical denials of disability accommodations based on the duration of a disability or accommodation need. Two other proposed classes in the case remain limited to current DCAS employees. No class has been certified, and the preliminary injunction motion seeks interim relief for Berdynaj individually while the broader class claims proceed.

CASE STATUS

The case is Berdynaj v. City of New York et al., No. 1:26-cv-02126-DEH-JW, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and is assigned to U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis.  

The allegations described in this release are allegations in filed court papers and have not been adjudicated. Defendants may contest the allegations and the requested relief. The Court has not ruled on the motion and has not certified any proposed class.

###

MEDIA CONTACT

Cyrus E. Dugger
The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC
cd@theduggerlawfirm.com
(646) 560-3208

CASE INFORMATION

Southern District of New York
Berdynaj v. City of New York, et al.
Case No. 1:26-cv-02126-DEH-JW

****

The motion is available here and the amended complaint is available here.

Liberalized Medical Marijuana Laws Clash With Employer Policies -- Implicating Disability Rights

As covered by the New York Times:

"[M]arijuana’s recent strides toward the legal and cultural mainstream are running aground at the office.  Even as 23 states allow medical or recreational marijuana, employment experts say that most businesses are keeping their drug-free policies.  The result is a clash between a culture that increasingly accepts marijuana and companies that will fire employees who use it." (link)

During July New York passed a medical marijuana law permitting New Yorkers suffering from a narrow list of conditions to obtain marijuana for medical treatment.

This development in turn sets up a future series of conflicts between employers and at least some state and/or local disability discrimination laws, which may require reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities -- the people many of the medical marijuana laws are targeted to assist.

New York is no exception.  Indeed, it appears ripe for this conflict because of the state law's definition of those permitted to use medical marijuana as "disabled" within the meaning of New York disability discrimination law:

"The New York law specifically classifies individuals prescribed medical marijuana as 'disabled.'  Accordingly, employers may need to provide reasonable accommodation for medical marijuana users.  While courts have not yet addressed the issue of what constitutes a 'reasonable accommodation' for medical marijuana use, one suggestion is relaxing an employer's drug policy to permit the employee's medical marijuana use. Whether or not such 'accommodation' is reasonable will depend on the employee's specific job.  While it is low cost to the employer, if the side effects of marijuana have a negative impact on the employee's job, as could be the case of truck drivers or machine operators, such accommodation may not be reasonable."  (link)

Advocates for reasonable accommodations regarding medical marijuana use with respect to drug policies are in no small part assisted by increasing voices in support of the positive medical effects of marijuana -including Dr. Sanja Gupta. 

Dr. Gupta recently noted he is "doubling down on medical marijuana;"

"I have met with hundreds of patients, dozens of scientists and the curious majority who simply want a deeper understanding of this ancient plant. I have sat in labs and personally analyzed the molecules in marijuana that have such potential but are also a source of intense controversy. I have seen those molecules turned into medicine that has quelled epilepsy in a child and pain in a grown adult. I've seen it help a woman at the peak of her life to overcome the ravages of multiple sclerosis.

I am more convinced than ever that it is irresponsible to not provide the best care we can, care that often may involve marijuana.

I am not backing down on medical marijuana; I am doubling down." (link)

This will certainly be one of the more interesting employment law issues over the course of the next few years, particularly given the lack of movement with respect to the federal prohibition on the use of marijuana.

NYC Deadline to Provide Notice of Pregnancy Rights Expires Tomorrow

In 2013 NYC passed an amendment to the New York City Human Rights law broadening protections for pregnant workers.  The amendment requires employers to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations at work.

Before passage of the amendment, pregnant employees were often not entitled to any accommodations because they did not meet the definition of "disabled" under disability discrimination laws. 

As explained in the preamble to the amendment:

"The Council finds that pregnant women are vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace in New York City.  For example, there are reports that women who request an accommodation that will allow them to maintain a healthy pregnancy, or who need a reasonable accommodation while recovering from childbirth, are being removed from their positions, placed on unpaid leave, or fired.  It is the intent of the Council to combat this form of discrimination by requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women and those who suffer medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth.  Such a reasonable accommodation may include bathroom breaks, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, breaks to facilitate increased water intake, periodic rest for those who stand for long periods of time, and assistance with manual labor, among other things . . . ." (link)

The new law, which applies to employers with four or more employees, became effective January 30, 2014.  In addition, as of that date, NYC employers (with four or more employees) were required to provide a notice of these new protections to all new hires. 

The deadline to provide the notice to current employees expires tomorrow. 

Employees - if you have not received this notice your employer may be in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

Employers - if you have not sent this notice out yet - you might want to get started on that . . . right now.

The notice is below and an overview of the amendment is available here.