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.

Most importantly, the amended class action complaint seeks certification of a proposed citywide class that is not limited to employees of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”). The proposed citywide class consists of current City employees who requested a disability accommodation (other than leave) submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, and allegedly had the request denied or not approved, in whole or in part, because of the permanent, indefinite, or no-end-date nature of the disability or requested accommodation.

The amended complaint also adds several new individual defendants to the litigation, including current DCAS Commission Yume Kitasei, previous DCAS Commissioner Louis A. Molina, and DCAS attorney Jakub Kazior.

According to the amended complaint, the challenged issue is whether the City may deny or not approve accommodation requests based on the duration of the disability or accommodation need, instead of conducting an individualized reasonable accommodation review.
The amended complaint also alleges that DCAS’s actions have a special significance because of its role in the City’s equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation structure. The City’s Reasonable Accommodation Procedural Guidelines describe a reasonable accommodation process that includes cooperative dialogue, review of job duties, discussion of potential accommodations, undue hardship analysis, written determinations, appeals, recordkeeping, confidentiality, and defined roles for agency personnel.

The amended complaint further alleges that Citywide Equity and Inclusion (“CEI”) and DCAS play a central role in reasonable accommodation guidance, oversight, training, and support for agency equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) offices. The amended complaint alleges that, because City agencies rely on this structure, the challenged practices have significance beyond one agency.

The amended complaint seeks certification of three proposed classes.

The first proposed class is the Permanent Disability Denial Class. This proposed class is citywide. It concerns current City employees who allegedly had a disability accommodation request (other than for leave) denied or not approved because of the permanent, indefinite, or no-end-date nature of the disability or requested accommodation.

The second proposed class is the Remote Work Request Retaliation Class. This proposed class is DCAS-specific. It concerns current DCAS employees who requested a disability-based remote-work accommodation, submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, and allegedly received certain adverse actions within seventy-five days after requesting, renewing, supplementing, or appealing a disability-based remote-work accommodation request.

The third proposed class is the Medical Inquiry Class. This proposed class is also DCAS-specific. It concerns current DCAS employees who requested a disability accommodation, submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, had a permanent or long-term disability, were initially approved for an accommodation, and were later allegedly asked for additional medical documentation concerning the existence, diagnosis, severity, or continuing validity of the disability as a condition of continuing the accommodation.

According to the amended complaint, Plaintiff Berdynaj has worked for DCAS since approximately September 2018. The amended complaint alleges that he has chronic respiratory and pulmonary conditions requiring ongoing treatment and access to home-based medical equipment.

The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff performed work remotely for years, including after DCAS approved a full-time remote-work reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff alleges that DCAS later denied continued full-time remote work, requested additional documentation, required a fixed return-to-office timeline, and treated the asserted permanent or indefinite nature of the accommodation as part of the basis for denial.

The amended complaint also alleges that Plaintiff experienced adverse employment actions after seeking accommodations and opposing what he believed to be disability discrimination. The alleged actions include a demotion, forced leave usage, denial of interim remote work during review, AWOL designations or threats, revocation of telework, a Section 72 medical examination, involuntary FMLA or medical leave, rejection of medical notes, disciplinary charges, and return-to-work requirements.

The amended complaint further alleges that, after the original federal complaint was filed, DCAS engaged in additional conduct that Plaintiff contends was retaliatory.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief directed at the challenged accommodation practices. Among other requested relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to require lawful individualized reasonable accommodation procedures.

Plaintiff also seeks individual relief, including employment-related equitable relief, restoration of pay, leave, benefits, and other damages and relief available by law.

The amended complaint alleges that the class period for the proposed Permanent Disability Denial Class and the proposed Medical Inquiry Class begins on March 16, 2023, and continues through final judgment. The amended complaint alleges that the class period for the proposed Remote Work Request Retaliation Class begins on September 1, 2022, and continues through final judgment.

A overview of the original complaint can be found here.

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

The filed amended complaint is available here.

The amended class action complaint contains allegations only, class certification has not been decided, and the Court has not made any findings on the merits.

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.

The Dugger Law Firm Files Levine v. CUNY, a Putative Class Action Complaint Alleging Continued Denials of Disability-Based Remote-Work Accommodations, Retaliation, and Leave-Related Violations by CUNY

On March 29, 2026, Plaintiffs Robin Levine, Noreen Mulvanerty, Shavone Sease, Malik Sullivan, and Lucas Kwong filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against The City University of New York, The Board of Trustees of The City University of New York, the City of New York, and Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez in his official capacity. The complaint alleges  that the named Plaintiffs are current and former CUNY faculty and staff who worked for CUNY at Queensborough Community College, Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, Hostos Community College, and New York City College of Technology.

The class action complaint alleges that Levine v. CUNY follows and expands upon the earlier-filed Ramjerdi action. In Ramjerdi, Professor Jan Ramjerdi alleged that CUNY maintained a one-size-fits-all in-person mandate that functioned as a presumptive bar to fully remote work as a disability accommodation; retaliated against faculty requesting disability-based remote work; denied FMLA leave requests tied to accommodation requests and/or to the characterization of conditions as permanent; and used a medical-separation policy in a manner that bypassed reasonable-accommodation rights. 

According to the class action complaint, Professor Ramjerdi’s case was not isolated. The complaint alleges that similar disability-based remote work requests were processed through the same or similar Queensborough Community College Human Resources and appeal channels, and that similar conduct affected faculty and staff across multiple campuses and job titles. It further alleges that CUNY did not change course after the Ramjerdi lawsuit was filed or after Professor Ramjerdi’s death, and instead continued to deny or materially restrict disability-based requests for fully remote work, substitute purported alternatives that still required in-person attendance, and treat accommodation requests as a trigger for leave substitution, AWOL status, discipline, or separation rather than as a prompt for an individualized good-faith interactive process or cooperative dialogue.

Taken together, the Ramjerdi and Levine class action complaints describe six concrete examples — Professor Ramjerdi and Plaintiffs Levine, Sease, Mulvanerty, Sullivan, and Kwong — spanning multiple CUNY campuses and both faculty and staff roles. The complaint alleges repeated remote-work denials, rigid in-person requirements, repeated recertification demands, retaliatory scrutiny, and separation pressure. It further alleges that Defendants’ resistance was especially pronounced when medical documentation described the disability, limitation, or accommodation need as permanent, chronic, ongoing, long-term, expected to last years, until further notice, or indefinite.

The Levine class action complaint further alleges a broader pattern, practice, custom, policy, method of administration, and/or standard operating procedure of denying, delaying, curtailing, and/or failing to implement: (1) disability-based remote-work accommodations; (2) substituting materially inferior measures or leave in place of effective accommodations; (3) treating permanent or long-term accommodation requests as categorically disfavored; and (4) retaliating against employees who request disability accommodations, invoke FMLA or accommodation-related leave, appeal accommodation denials, or complain about disability discrimination.

Plaintiffs seek class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring lawful, individualized accommodation determinations and meaningful interactive processes and cooperative dialogues, as well as individual relief and damages. 

The case is Levine v. CUNY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01859, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and has been initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy as the presiding judge.

The class action complaint contains allegations only, and the Court has not made findings on the merits.

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.