CUNY Disability Accommodation Lawsuit Adds 15 Individual Defendants, Three Plaintiffs, and Additional Putative Classes

“Expanded proposed class action includes eight current and former employees from six colleges who allege disability-accommodation denials, delays and retaliation.”

Long Island City, New York – The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC has filed an amended federal complaint(opens in new tab) (Levine v. CUNY, No. 1:26-cv-01859) (opens in new tab)adding fifteen individual defendants and three plaintiffs to a proposed class action challenging disability accommodation and leave practices at the City University of New York.

The lawsuit now includes eight current and former faculty and staff members from six CUNY colleges. Their amended complaint alleges that CUNY and other defendants denied or delayed accommodations, made repeated medical-documentation demands and engaged in retaliation. The plaintiffs allege resulting harms including lost pay, depleted leave and job loss.

The amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action was originally filed on March 29, 2026.

This release describes allegations and requests for relief in the filed amended complaint, not court findings. Plaintiffs ask the court to certify the proposed classes. Filing the complaint does not certify a class. Defendants may contest the allegations and requested relief.

Fifteen additional individual defendants

The amended complaint continues to name CUNY, its Board of Trustees, the City of New York and Chancellor Felix V. Matos Rodríguez as defendants. The Chancellor, previously sued only in his official capacity, is now also sued in his individual capacity.

The amendment adds fifteen individual defendants: Ronnie Ursin, Linda Washington-Brown, Anthony E. Munroe, Suzanne M. Miller, Victor Humphrey, Sandra C. Gordon, Patricia A. Cody, Justin Vázquez-Poritz, Patrick Corbett, Gila Rohr, Avery Mullen, Blerina Likollari, Sandy Lujan, Dori J. Rubin and Tanya Myers. Each is sued in an individual capacity. The allegations, claims and requested remedies vary by plaintiff and defendant.

Challenged practices across six colleges

The eight plaintiffs are current or former employees of Queensborough Community College, Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, Hostos Community College, the College of Staten Island and New York City College of Technology.

The complaint challenges alleged failures to accommodate disabilities, rigid onsite requirements, repeated medical reviews and accommodation approvals allegedly left unimplemented. Several plaintiffs allege that existing online courses, digital systems or remote arrangements would have allowed them to continue performing their duties with effective accommodations.

Expanded proposed classes address repeated medical demands, remote-work barriers and retaliation

The amended complaint adds a proposed subclass for employees who, according to the complaint, were required to obtain renewed provider certification of permanent or chronic conditions when an approval period ended, without an identified change in their condition, duties or requested accommodation, or a deficiency in existing documentation. A separate proposed subclass challenges semester-by-semester and other fixed, non-individualized approval limits despite documented longer-term needs.

Another new proposed subclass concerns alleged failures to implement written approval for fully remote work, including subsequent onsite assignments or withheld teaching workload based on required physical presence. A separate proposed subclass challenges an alleged categorical refusal to consider disability-related commuting limitations when evaluating remote-work requests.

One new proposed class concerns employees who previously received remote-work disability accommodations in the same positions after February 28, 2022, but whose later written, medically supported requests remained pending without approval for more than sixty consecutive days, even though no equipment needed to be ordered.

Additional proposed classes challenge alleged paperwork barriers, including requiring designated medical forms despite existing provider documentation without identifying missing information, and requiring providers to identify an essential job function an employee cannot perform before considering an accommodation request. Another proposed class concerns medical-release provisions combined with hold-harmless agreements covering those supplying medical information, which plaintiffs allege were presented for signature without informing employees of alternative ways to substantiate their requests.

The lawsuit also retains proposed classes addressing remote-work denials, accommodation delays and disability-accommodation leave requests allegedly diverted into other procedures. Its proposed remote-accommodation retaliation class addresses alleged forced leave, lost pay, reduced assignments, termination and non-reappointment within sixty days of specified accommodation-related activity. Its proposed Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation class concerns qualifying employees notified of, or subjected to, termination or non-reappointment within sixty days of requesting, using or receiving approval for qualifying FMLA leave. A new proposed community-college class challenges categorical onsite-attendance and one-in-person-course requirements allegedly applied instead of individualized accommodation review.

Altogether, the amendment expands the proposed class structure from eight to nineteen classes and subclasses. The proposed groups encompass qualifying current and former non-managerial CUNY employees beyond the six colleges represented by the named plaintiffs. The proposed class period begins March 29, 2023, subject to each group’s specific membership requirements. Plaintiffs seek court orders changing the challenged practices. The classes remain proposed, and the allegations are not court findings.

Three additional plaintiffs

Dean DeRenzo, who worked at the College of Staten Island for approximately ten years, alleges that his previously approved remote work was reduced and onsite arrangements did not address his mobility limitations. According to the complaint, he received a notice terminating his employment effective immediately on June 30, 2026, seven days after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge and five days after requesting an internal investigation. He alleges that the termination was retaliatory.

Cia Kessler, an instructional designer who helps faculty design courses, develop online learning materials, and use digital teaching tools at Kingsborough Community College, alleges that a temporary schedule allowing two remote days per week did not meet her disability-related needs. She initially requested three remote days and later sought five, providing additional medical support for the new request. She alleges that her work largely involved digital faculty support and instructional design, yet she was forced to use sick leave during periods when she could have worked remotely had the college approved the requested arrangement.

Bonnie Miles, a Borough of Manhattan Community College office assistant at the Manhattan Educational Opportunity Center, alleges that the college’s human resources office required renewed paperwork after approximately three years under an approved hybrid schedule. The complaint states that her schedule allowing three remote days per week was renewed effective August 31, 2026, but that requests for scheduling flexibility, symptom-management breaks and meeting access remained unresolved. She also alleges interference with approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The five original plaintiffs

Robin Levine, who worked at Queensborough Community College for more than twenty years, alleges that officials denied additional remote work during her recovery from surgery, despite her successful performance of Registrar’s Office duties remotely in earlier periods. According to the complaint, she sought two additional remote days per week for approximately six remaining summer weeks. She alleges that the denial and directive to return onsite forced her retirement in August 2023.

Noreen Mulvanerty, a former assistant professor of pediatric nursing at Borough of Manhattan Community College, alleges that officials failed to provide a full teaching workload compatible with her approved remote-work accommodation, despite available remote assignments. She alleges that officials then relied on the resulting workload shortfall and her absence from hospital clinical work in denying her reappointment. She also alleges that officials declined to consider additional medical leave as a disability accommodation, although she received unprotected non-FMLA medical leave.

Shavone Sease, a longtime Kingsborough Community College Registrar’s Office employee, alleges repeated express and constructive denials of disability accommodations, including fully remote work, an effective enclosed workspace, and modified hours. She alleges that proposed onsite measures were inadequate and that fully remote work was denied despite her demonstrated ability to perform scheduling and related duties remotely through existing college systems. The complaint identifies a 106-day review of her modified-schedule request, a separate 97-day wait for an accommodation-appeal decision, and a renewed remote-work request that remained unresolved for at least 106 days, from July 2 through October 16, 2026. She alleges that, while awaiting requested disability accommodations, she remained required to work onsite under conditions that aggravated her disabilities or use leave instead.

Malik Sullivan, a former Registrar’s Office employee at Hostos Community College, alleges that the college denied his request for six months of fully remote work despite his prior successful remote work during the pandemic. He alleges that the modified hours and partial remote-work schedules he received provided some benefit but did not adequately address his disability-related limitations. He further alleges that his March 27, 2023 request for additional disability-related medical leave remained pending when he received a non-reappointment notice on March 29, 2023. He alleges disability discrimination and retaliation related to his accommodation and FMLA leave requests and discrimination complaints.

Lucas Kwong, a tenured associate professor of English at New York City College of Technology, alleges prolonged delays and restrictions on disability-related remote teaching and other faculty duties. Although he eventually received remote-teaching relief, the complaint alleges constructive accommodation denials, including a 65-day wait for a fully asynchronous teaching schedule and a 143-day wait before partial teaching relief. He further alleges that requests to perform peer observations, attend meetings, and fulfill other service duties remotely were denied or remained unresolved. He also challenges as unlawful semester-by-semester reapplication and renewed medical-documentation requirements despite his documented permanent conditions, and alleges that City Tech required closure of his internal discrimination complaint during his accommodation appeal, although later refiling was permitted.

CASE INFORMATION 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Levine et al v. The City University of New York et al.
Case No. al 1:26-cv-01859
Case File: Filed Amended Complaint (PDF)

SOURCE: The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Seeks Partial Summary Judgment Against The Legal Aid Society Over Denials of Marissa Kubicki’s Disability Accommodation Request

On October 14, 2026, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC filed a motion for partial summary judgment on behalf of Marissa Kubicki in her disability accommodation lawsuit against The Legal Aid Society. The motion asks the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to hold Legal Aid liable on her individual failure-to-accommodate claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15).

This article summarizes Ms. Kubicki’s filed submissions and legal arguments, not findings by the Court. Legal Aid disputes liability and has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The request at the center of the motion was straightforward. According to Ms. Kubicki’s submissions, she was not asking for additional work-from-home days or permission to stop attending court. She merely sought to continue the same approach to court coverage she had successfully used for more than two years: working from Legal Aid’s own office across the street from the Bronx courthouse and attending court whenever a client, attorney, hearing, or emergency actually required her presence.

The motion argues that Legal Aid’s written denials, constructive denial, performance evaluations, workplace records, and Ms. Kubicki’s prior successful use of the same office-based court-coverage arrangement, together with supporting declarations, establish that it unlawfully refused an accommodation that would have allowed Ms. Kubicki to protect her health while continuing to serve clients.

A Request to Continue Working as Before, Not Additional Work-From-Home Days

Ms. Kubicki is a Licensed Master Social Worker who began working for Legal Aid in 2019 and joined its Parole Revocation Defense Unit in 2023. Her job responsibilities included client interviews, assessments, mitigation, referrals, attorney consultation, and court advocacy.

Ms. Kubicki has been diagnosed with a condition called ankylosing spondylitis and was receiving immunosuppressive treatment when she submitted her accommodation request to Legal Aid. On November 24, 2025, she provided Legal Aid medical documentation supporting limits on unnecessary courthouse exposure while preserving necessary court attendance.

Legal Aid had already approved a hybrid schedule and other accommodations, and Ms. Kubicki was not requesting additional remote work days. Rather, this request concerned where she would work during her existing in-person days.

Her proposed arrangement would have used her assigned, already-equipped Legal Aid office, which was an approximately five-minute walk to the courthouse, rather than working within the courthouse when she did not have responsibilities requiring her presence in court, as she had previously done for two years. According to her submissions, Ms. Kubicki would have remained available through existing telephone, email, and Microsoft Teams communications and continued to prioritize court needs.

She did not request different hours, additional staff, a new position, or reassignment of her clients and court responsibilities.

An Oral Denial Followed by Two Written DENIALS

The motion focuses on two written refusals by Legal Aid to provide the requested interim accommodation while it continued reviewing Ms. Kubicki’s request. Those refusals followed an earlier oral denial. According to Ms. Kubicki’s declaration, at a December 26, 2025 meeting attended by union delegate Hayley Feldman, Legal Aid’s Senior Employee Relations Specialist, Laura Walsh, told her that her request to work from Legal Aid’s office across the street and attend court as needed was being denied.

On January 12, 2026, Legal Aid’s then-Chief Human Resources Officer, Connie Park, wrote to Ms. Kubicki: “The interim request to remain in the LAS office until requested in court, rather than working from the court location, is not approved.” The email also stated that Legal Aid needed additional information to evaluate the requested accommodation or potential alternatives.

On January 20, 2026, Park reaffirmed in writing that the interim accommodation “was denied and remains so,” citing management’s position that in-person court coverage was an essential function. Ms. Kubicki’s motion challenges those refusals because her proposed arrangement preserved necessary court attendance while allowing her to work from Legal Aid’s nearby office between court needs.

Legal Aid’s Own Evaluations and Prior Workplace Practices Support the Motion

The motion argues that Ms. Kubicki’s proposed arrangement was grounded in actual workplace experience, not speculation about whether the job could be performed differently.

Ms. Kubicki’s declaration describes an established practice of working from the office between court needs and responding when assistance was required. A supporting declaration from former Bronx Parole Revocation Defense Unit social worker Luca Verano Diaz describes the same approach, including prioritizing court requests while performing other assigned work from the office.

Legal Aid’s own performance evaluations are also central to Ms. Kubicki’s argument.

Ms. Kubicki’s March 2025 evaluation, which discussed her work with accommodations already in place, stated that “her work has not been impacted.” It credited her communication and collaboration with colleagues, availability for referrals, and management of her workload.

Ms. Kubicki relies on those evaluations, together with the evidence of prior office-based court coverage, to challenge the contention that her proposed arrangement was incompatible with effective client service.

The motion draws a distinction between performing essential court services and remaining physically in the courthouse when no identified task requires an employee to be there. Ms. Kubicki argues that she sought to continue her prior practice of remaining available from Legal Aid’s office between court needs, not to change the responsibilities she was required to fulfill.

The Motion Challenges Legal Aid’s Essential-Functions and Undue-Hardship Defenses

Ms. Kubicki’s motion argues that Legal Aid cannot show that the proposed accommodation would have prevented her from meeting the essential requirements of her job or imposed an undue hardship on Legal Aid.

It emphasizes that the requested accommodation would have utilized existing office, equipment, and communication systems, the office’s proximity to the courthouse, and Ms. Kubicki’s continued responsibility for her hours, caseload, and necessary court attendance.

The motion argues that the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability supports Ms. Kubicki’s accommodation claim. Its “Leave, Scheduling, and Remote Work” section explains that the mere fact an employee would work outside the physical office “generally will not be sufficient to support an undue hardship defense.” Rather than relying on blanket remote-work restrictions, employers must engage in a cooperative dialogue and individually assess whether the employee’s specific tasks can be performed remotely or another accommodation would meet the employee’s needs. The employer must identify why that particular employee’s absence would create undue hardship in relation to the position’s essential duties, or show that it offered another accommodation meeting the employee’s needs. N.Y.C. Comm’n on Hum. Rts., Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability pt. II(A)(iii)(d), at 56–57 (Dec. 2025).

The motion further argues that the guidance supports evaluating Ms. Kubicki’s actual work practices, rather than treating Legal Aid’s characterization of courthouse presence as conclusive. The guidance requires a fact-specific inquiry into both the employer’s description of the position and “how the job is actually performed in practice.” A written job description is relevant, but does not conclusively establish which duties are essential. Id. pt. II(A)(iv)(b), at 61–62.

The motion also rejects the proposition that by continuing to discuss an accommodation, an employer can be excused for failing to provide one. It asserts that City law expressly states that compliance with the cooperative-dialogue requirement is not a defense to a failure-to-accommodate claim. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(28)(f).

Later Accommodation Proposals Do Not Resolve the Earlier Denials, Ms. Kubicki Argues

According to Ms. Kubicki’s motion papers, on March 6, 2026, 102 calendar days after she requested the accommodation on November 24, 2025, Legal Aid proposed replacing preliminary courthouse visits with Teams messages to limit her in-person court time to that required to address client needs. The papers also state that Ms. Kubicki had begun medical leave on February 2, 2026, on her physician’s recommendation and remained on leave when Legal Aid made the March 6 proposal.

Ms. Kubicki argues that neither the March 6 proposal nor Legal Aid’s earlier alternative proposal erase the January written refusals or resolve whether Legal Aid unlawfully withheld an effective accommodation during the periods challenged in her motion.

What the Partial Summary Judgment Motion Seeks

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may resolve a claim or part of a claim without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ms. Kubicki argues that the submitted evidence meets that standard for Legal Aid’s liability on her individual New York City Human Rights Law accommodation claim. Alternatively, she asks the Court to resolve particular issues or establish material facts for the remaining litigation.

The motion does not seek a damages award, a determination of medical causation, class certification, class-wide liability, or judgment against the other defendants. Those matters are reserved.

The Broader Legal Aid Society Disability Accommodation Lawsuit

As described in the firm’s earlier overview of the Legal Aid Society disability accommodation class action, the litigation challenges alleged practices extending beyond Ms. Kubicki’s individual request.

The amended complaint alleges denials of location-related accommodations, delays without effective interim protection, unnecessary demands for additional medical documentation, and retaliation involving changes or recharacterizations of job requirements after accommodation requests. It seeks class-wide changes to the challenged practices.

The partial summary judgment motion asks the Court only to decide Legal Aid’s responsibility for the specific accommodation refusals and related delay addressed in Ms. Kubicki’s individual claim.

The case is Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society et al., No. 1:26-cv-03882-VSB-OTW, before U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick and U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice of motion appears at ECF No. 68, the statement of material facts at ECF No. 71, and the supporting memorandum at ECF No. 72. The amended complaint is available here.

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 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.

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 Dugger Law Firm, PLLC: Former Mayor’s Office of Appointments Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti Files Discrimination and Retaliation Class Action Against NYC

Former Mayor’s Office of Appointments (“MOA”) Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti has filed an individual and class action complaint against the City of New York (“NYC”), former Director and Principal EEO Officer for MOA Joni Kletter (“Kletter”), NYC Law Department EEO Officer Sosimo Fabian (“Fabian”), and NYC Agency Counsel Michael Levario (“Levario”).

Filed pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Section 1981, Section 1983, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), the twelve-count complaint includes individual claims for: (1) race, ancestry, color, and race and/or ancestry-plus gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and stereotyping discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) interference with FMLA and NYCHRL rights; (4) NYCHRL aiding and abetting and attempted aiding and abetting liability; and (5) NYCHRL disparate impact liability.

The complaint’s allegations include that Defendants NYC and Kletter discriminated against Ms. Perez-Pedemonti because of her Hispanic and/or Hispanic female identity (and/or color), and/or retaliated against her because of her complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation at MOA, including by failing to promote her in favor of Defendant Levario, demoting her, stripping her of job duties, and/or attempting to force her to sign a confidentiality agreement, as well as by creating a discriminatory hostile work environment.  The complaint further alleges FMLA retaliation and interference claims against Defendants NYC and Kletter.

Beyond the allegations of discrimination and retaliation directed at Ms. Perez-Pedemonti, the complaint further alleges that Defendant Kletter: (1) agreed that “‘three Muslims’ were ‘too many’” for a Civic Engagement Commission and then had two Muslims removed from contention for the candidate pool; (2) responded inappropriately to a sexual harassment complaint against Defendant Levario that Ms. Perez-Pedemonti had reported to Defendant Kletter, as MOA’s EEO Officer, on behalf of a female subordinate; (3) mocked current Commissioner Everardo Jefferson for having a Spanish accent during a practice interview when he was a candidate for the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission; (4) repeatedly discriminated against MOA’s Black female former Legal Director; and (5) told Ms. Perez-Pedemonti that she considered MOA’s former Legal Director’s taking of FMLA leave to have been “insubordination.”  Ms. Perez-Pedemonti additionally alleges that she was retaliated against after she complained about some of this discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct, as well as following her complaint to human resources of a “culture of racial and ethnic discrimination at MOA.” 

In addition to individual claims, Ms. Perez-Pedemonti alleges class claims, for injunctive and declaratory relief, on behalf of all NYC employees who filed EEO complaints against a Commissioner, Head of Agency, and/or EEO Officer.  Specifically, the complaint alleges, a pattern or practice, in violation of the NYCHRL, of retaliation, interference, and/or aiding and abetting of NYCHRL violations, and in violation of  Section 1981 concerning a pattern or practice of retaliation, by the NYC Law Department and/or its EEO Officer Sosimo Fabian, against NYC employees who made EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agencies, and/or EEO Officers that were referred to the Law Department for resolution.  The complaint alleges these violations occurred through the Law Department and/or Fabian: (1) issuing findings that their EEO complaints were “unsubstantiated”; (2) conducting bad faith investigations of EEO complaints; (3) conducting pre-determined investigations of EEO complaints; (4) failing to accurately communicate the actual results of EEO complaint investigations; and/or (5) failing to properly, fully, and/or fairly investigate employee complaints of discrimination and retaliation.

The complaint additionally alleges a disparate impact on NYC employees who made EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agency, and/or EEO Officers, as a result of NYC’s applicable EEO policies, including: (1) referral of such EEO complaints to the Law Department for resolution; and/or (2) the Department of Citywide Administrative Services’ (“DCAS’s”) issuance of EEO guidelines and policies that did not provide clear standards for resolution of EEO claims and/or that did not accurately reflect the legal standards specific to the NYCHRL.  The complaint alleges that these, and other EEO policies, resulted in a disparate impact on the class through disproportionate rates of discipline, resignation, and/or termination.

The complaint further alleges that, in violation of Section 1983, the City has, on a class-wide basis, failed to adequately train and/or supervise Commissioners, Heads of Agency, EEO Officers, including regarding: (1) appropriately identifying potential discrimination and retaliation violations (including oral complaints); and (2) refraining from retaliating and/or instructing others to refrain from retaliating against NYC employees who made EEO complaints concerning Commissioners, Agency Heads, and/or EEO Officers.  It further alleges that NYC had a policy or practice of retaliation against employees who made sex discrimination, race discrimination, or related retaliation EEO complaints against Commissioners, Agency Heads, and/or EEO Officers.

Ms. Perez-Pedemonti’s complaint, in addition to seeking individual relief, seeks a class-wide injunction requiring the reevaluation of EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agency, and EEO Officers, that the Law Department previously found to be “unsubstantiated,” during the relevant class period, as well as prospective evaluation of such future EEO complaints, by an independent body such as an independent office, ombudsman, or the NYC Office of the Public Advocate.

Perez-Pedemonti v. The City of New York et al., No. 1:22-cv-06180 (NRB) (JW), is proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald.

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

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in Race Discrimination Case Against 643 Broadway Holdings LLC d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co. and Joshua Berkowitz

On December 10, 2011, Michael S. Douglas, Jr. filed a race discrimination complaint in Manhattan Supreme Court against 643 Broadway Holdings LLC(d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co.) and co-owner Joshua Berkowitz.   

The complaint alleges that Berkowitz racially harassed former Bleecker Kitchen & Co. restaurant manager Douglas during his employment with Bleecker.  The complaint further alleges that Berkowitz was not aware that Douglas, who is Filipino and African-American, was black, when Berkowitz, using coded words, counseled Mr. Douglas against hiring black servers.   

On March 2, 2016, the Honorable Eileen A. Rakower ordered Defendants to produce all of the hard copy and electronic documents sought in Plaintiff’s motion to compel, with the exception of documents related to Gold Bar or Defendants’ assets.

The Court further ordered Defendants to provide an affidavit from someone with knowledge of the search conducted concerning requests for which Defendants claim documents do not exist, or are not in Defendants', possession, custody, or control.

The Court’s Order is available here.

The case is Douglas v. 643 Broadway Holdings LLC d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co. et al., Index No. 162179

Mr. Douglas is represented by Cyrus E. Dugger of the Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and James Halter and Asa Smith of Liddle & Robinson L.L.P.

CVS Store Detectives File Race Discrimination Class Action Alleging Forced Racial Profiling of Black and Latino Shoppers

As reported in the NY Times:

"Four former store detectives employed by CVS in New York filed a class-action lawsuit against the drugstore chain on Wednesday, accusing their bosses of ordering them to target black and Hispanic shoppers.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, also alleged that the detectives were fired after they complained about racial discrimination, against both customers and themselves.

The plaintiffs, all of whom are either black or Hispanic, contend in their suit that two supervisors in CVS’s loss-prevention department, overseeing stores in Manhattan and Queens, regularly told them to racially profile nonwhite shoppers. The suit says that one of the supervisors, Anthony Salvatore, routinely told subordinates that “black people always are the ones that are the thieves,” and that “lots of Hispanic people steal.” The second supervisor, Abdul Selene, frequently advised detectives, known at CVS as market investigators, to “watch the black and Hispanic people to catch more cases,” the suit said." (keep reading)

Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie & Fitch on Religious Discrimination Appeal

It has become a stirring and rare event for the Supreme Court to hand down a decision protecting or strengthening employee rights, but low and behold, it has occurred once more - with a decision from Justice Scalia:

"To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant needshow only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledgeof his need. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision requires Elaufto show that Abercrombie (1) “fail[ed] . . . to hire” her (2) “because of ” (3) “[her] religion” (including a religious practice). 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). And its “because of” standard is understood to mean that the protected characteristic cannot be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision. §2000e–2(m). Thus, rather than imposing aknowledge standard, §2000e–2(a)(1) prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Title VII contains no knowledge requirement. Furthermore, Title VII’s definition of religion clearly indicates that failure-to-accommodate challenges can be brought as disparate-treatment claims. And Title VII gives favored treatment toreligious practices, rather than demanding that religious practices betreated no worse than other practices." (continue reading)