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.

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.

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Files Class Action Complaint Against The Legal Aid Society Alleging Disability Accommodation Denials and Retaliation

On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Marissa Kubicki filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against The Legal Aid Society, Connie Park, Laura Walsh, Rebekah Almanzar, Jackie Quigley, and Yonzel Burt.

Plaintiff is a Forensic Social Worker in The Legal Aid Society’s Parole Revocation Defense (“PRDU”) Unit. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has ankylosing spondylitis and underwent medical treatment that rendered her immunocompromised. According to the complaint, Plaintiff sought a disability-based accommodation that would allow her to limit unnecessary courthouse exposure while remaining available to attend court when her physical presence was needed for client meetings, attorney support, hearings, or other court-related needs.

The complaint alleges that, rather than provide interim protection or conduct a good-faith individualized assessment, The Legal Aid Society required Plaintiff to remain physically present in court or the courthouse for up to seven hours per day during several court-coverage days, including when no client-specific or attorney-specific need required her physical presence. Plaintiff alleges that she had previously performed her job by working from The Legal Aid Society office across the street from the Bronx courthouse and attending court in-person when needed.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff requested a disability-based accommodation to work from The Legal Aid Society office during onsite court-coverage shifts and to attend court when called, rather than maintaining continuous courthouse presence. The complaint alleges that The Legal Aid Society denied her disability-based accommodation request on January 20, 2026, asserted that in-person/onsite court coverage was an essential function of the PRDU Forensic Social Worker role, and failed to provide an effective interim accommodation while the request was pending.

The complaint further alleges that The Legal Aid Society re-characterized Plaintiff’s job duties after she sought an accommodation, demanded unnecessary additional medical documentation, failed to engage in a good-faith cooperative dialogue, and retaliated against Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who requested disability-based accommodations or opposed disability accommodation practices.

Plaintiff alleges that, during the period when her accommodation request remained unresolved, she was required to continue disputed in-person court coverage without interim protection. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ refusal to provide interim protection required unnecessary or excessive courthouse exposure while she was immunocompromised and materially increased her risk of infection.

The complaint further alleges that other Legal Aid Society employees experienced similar accommodation-related practices. It seeks certification of four proposed classes: (1) a Location-Based Accommodation Class for employees who requested work-location, remote-work, reduced-presence, or exposure-limiting accommodations, (2) a Post-Request Job-Duty Recharacterization Class for employees whose duties or asserted essential functions were allegedly changed after they requested accommodations, (3) a NYCHRL Accommodation Delay Class for employees whose requests were allegedly delayed, including without interim measures, and (4) an Additional Medical Documentation Class for employees allegedly required to provide unnecessary or excessive medical documentation.

The ten-count complaint asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint’s claims include: alleged failure to reasonably accommodate; retaliation; interference, coercion, threats, and intimidation; medical inquiry violations; unlawful qualification standards and screening; failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue; and aiding and abetting liability against the individual defendants under the NYCHRL.

Among other requested relief, Plaintiff seeks class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring lawful, timely, individualized accommodation procedures, prompt interim measures while accommodation requests are pending, limits on allegedly unnecessary medical-documentation demands, as well as training, monitoring, and other forward-looking relief. As to declaratory relief, Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that The Legal Aid Society’s alleged conduct was willful and undertaken with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the proposed classes.

Plaintiff also seeks individual relief including back pay, front pay, reinstatement and/or full grant of the requested accommodation, compensatory damages, punitive damages under the NYCHRL, nominal damages, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs, and interest.

The case is Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03882, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint contains allegations only. The Court has not made any findings on the merits, and Defendants have not been adjudicated liable for any of the alleged conduct.

We Are Hiring: AI-Powered Litigation Associate (Remote) — The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC

Who We Are

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC is a small, mission-driven, exclusively plaintiff-side employment law firm that represents New York City employees in discrimination, retaliation, and wage-and-hour cases. We combine the use of traditional civil rights laws with underutilized New York City discrimination law to help improve the experience of being an employee in New York City.

How We Work

You will work remotely, with court appearances, depositions, mediations, and in‑person work in NYC only as required by litigation.

Why This Is Different

You’ll be advancing the firm’s litigation with the latest AI tools and AI-driven litigation strategies. You’ll collaborate closely with our Director of AI & Product, who drives firmwide AI systems and product strategy, in order to operationalize cutting‑edge AI litigation workflows across legal research, drafting, e‑discovery, and firm knowledge management capacities.

Role Overview

• Title: AI Litigation Associate (Employment Law)

• Location: Remote (NY practice focus; periodic NYC in‑person work)

• Schedule: 50 hours/week

• Reports to: Principal and collaborates with the Director of AI & Product

What You’ll Do

• Manage an active litigation docket of 5–10 matters

• Manage cases from filing through resolution

• Draft complaints, discovery requests and responses, and motions

• Lead e-discovery and discovery processes

AI‑Accelerated Litigation

• Use and help refine best‑in‑class AI litigation technology to draft pleadings, memos, research summaries, deposition prep materials, and discovery responses

Client & Court Practice

• Run strategy calls, prepare clients and witnesses, conduct/defend depositions, argue motions, conduct electronic discovery, engage in settlement negotiations, attend mediations and conferences

What You’ll Bring

• Admission: New York bar (in good standing)

• Experience: 2–6+ years of civil litigation (employment discrimination/wage‑hour preferred), including motion practice, e-discovery experience, and depositions.

• Writing: Exceptional brief‑writing

• AI Fluency: Hands‑on use of modern legal AI tools (or a demonstrable capacity and commitment to learn fast) and enthusiasm for operating within AI litigation workflows

• Traits: Reliability, self‑direction, excellent time management in a remote setting, professional and intellectual curiosity, and a bias for creative impact‑oriented litigation on behalf of NYC workers

Compensation & Benefits (NYC Pay Transparency)

• Base Salary: $115,000.

• Performance Bonus: 10% of total net attorneys’ fees collected for the firm above $115,000 from assigned litigation matters.

• Health insurance (75% employer-paid).

• 401(k) match (100% of employee contributions up to the first 3% of pay and 50% of employee contributions on the next 2% of pay).

• 3 weeks of PTO in year one (4 weeks thereafter).

How to Apply

Email dlfapplications@theduggerlawfirm.com with subject line “AI Litigation Associate Application” (applications that do not follow these directions will not be considered). Please attach your resume, a cover letter (including a one‑paragraph example of how you’ve used AI to improve litigation work), and a writing sample of a legal brief or motion letter you primarily authored. Application deadline is December 5, 2025.

DLF is proud to be an equal opportunity employer. We welcome applications from attorneys of all backgrounds who share our commitment to advancing workplace justice.

We Are Hiring: Associate Position (Remote) With The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC

Associate (Remote Position) - The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC

About Us: The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC (“DLF”) is a private law firm committed to challenging employment discrimination and wage theft in New York City. Focusing on representing NYC employees in discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour matters, DLF has consistently advanced traditional as well as underutilized NYC law-based legal claims.

DLF has also developed a substantial practice representing employees with mental health disabilities seeking protected leaves of absence under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.

Position Overview: Associate

Location: Remote

Schedule: Working hours are strictly limited to a total of forty hours per week.

Responsibilities:

• Drafting demand letters

• Drafting administrative charges

• Client intake

• All aspects of the firm’s litigation matters (after probationary period of six months)

Qualifications:

• Admitted to the New York bar

• Experience in employment discrimination law

• Strong legal research, writing, and analytical skills

• Strong interpersonal skills

• Legal creativity and curiosity

• Interest in impact litigation

• Time management skills, organizational skills, and initiative required for remote work

Compensation and Benefits:

• Salary: $80,000 - $100,000 (depending on experience)

• Three weeks of annual PTO (four weeks after first year of employment)

• Top-tier health insurance

Application Deadline: Applications will be considered on a rolling basis until the position is filled.

How to Apply: Interested candidates should email their resume and cover letter to cd@theduggerlawfirm.com. Please include “Associate Application” in the subject line. DLF is an equal opportunity employer. We appreciate your interest in joining our team dedicated to making a positive impact in the field of employment law and the public interest.

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.

The Face Modeling Competition Winner Devyn Abdullah Files Complaint Seeking Payment of Withheld Portion of Ulta Beauty Contract Award Against Direct Model Management, Inc. and Owner Mykola Webster

On April 21, 2015, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC filed a federal complaint on behalf of Devyn Abdullah, the first winner of The Face television modeling competition, against her former modeling agency, Direct Model Management, Inc., as well as Direct owner and president Mykola Webster, and Direct head of finance Atiff Joseph, for violations of federal and state wage and hour laws, as well as breach of contract.  

The complaint alleges that Defendants misclassified Ms. Abdullah as an independent contractor in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Among other violations, Ms. Abdullah alleges that Defendants withheld, and otherwise failed to pay her, at least $13,000 of her wages from The Face competition award of a $50,000 contract with Ulta Beauty. 

The complaint also alleges that Defendants failed to pay Ms. Abdullah for work with several additional modeling industry clients.

Ms. Abdullah seeks payment of minimum wages, payment of unpaid earned wages, liquidated damages with respect to minimum wages that were eventually paid but were not paid promptly, reimbursements for illegal deductions, additional associated liquidated damages, as well as damages for breach of contract and New York Labor Law recordkeeping violations.

The case is Abdullah v. Direct Model Management, Inc., et al., No. 15 Civ. 03100, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

For more information contact Cyrus E. Dugger at cd@theduggerlawfirm.com or (646) 560-3208.