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.
