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 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.