Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority

Background

John Imhof sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Daniel Sherrod, Richard Morrison, and Andrew Lupin. He alleged workplace discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The claims concerned his requests to work remotely, his reassignment from a vice-president position to project manager, reductions in salary and benefits, and later requests for accommodations related to mental-health conditions and high blood pressure. Imhof also alleged that NYCHA knew his wife was in remission from cancer and that his son had three congenital heart defects.

The amended complaint asserted seven causes of action: disability discrimination; retaliation; failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue about accommodations; hostile work environment; associational disability discrimination based on his wife’s and son’s health conditions; promissory estoppel; and a request for a preliminary injunction requiring an accommodation.

The NYCHA Defendants—NYCHA, Morrison, and Lupin—sought partial dismissal of the associational-disability claim, the preliminary-injunction claim, and all claims against Lupin. Sherrod sought dismissal of the New York City Human Rights Law claims against him, arguing that they were barred by federal employment-discrimination remedies because he was a federal employee detailed to NYCHA. He alternatively argued that the United States should replace him as the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Sherrod’s Motion

The court did not decide whether Sherrod was a federal employee during the relevant period. The only evidence supporting that position was a certification from the United States Attorney, and that certification was outside the pleadings. Considering it on a motion to dismiss would require treating that portion of the motion as a motion for summary judgment, which would give Imhof a reasonable opportunity to obtain and present relevant evidence.

Because Imhof requested discovery on that issue, the court denied Sherrod’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered limited discovery solely on whether Sherrod was a federal employee when he allegedly interacted with Imhof at NYCHA. After that discovery, Sherrod may file a motion for summary judgment. The court stated that Judge Jennifer E. Willis would oversee the limited discovery. The court did not reach Sherrod’s alternative argument concerning substitution by the United States or the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Associational-Disability Claim

The court dismissed the fifth cause of action as asserted against the NYCHA Defendants. Imhof withdrew the associational-disability claim under the New York State Human Rights Law, and the court dismissed that portion of the claim. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court concluded that Imhof adequately alleged that his reassignment to project manager was an adverse employment action and that his later denial of remote-work time allegedly available to managers under NYCHA policy could also qualify as an adverse employment action.

But the court held that Imhof did not plead facts supporting a reasonable inference that NYCHA’s decisions were motivated by his wife’s or son’s health conditions. Imhof alleged instead that his reassignment occurred because of his own disability and that NYCHA cited operational needs. His allegation that NYCHA did not want him working from home because he had disabled family members at home was considered conclusory. The court therefore granted the motion as to the federal associational-disability claim against NYCHA and dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law associational-disability claim against NYCHA and Morrison. The conclusion states that the fifth cause of action was dismissed with prejudice as against NYCHA and Morrison.

Preliminary-Injunction Claim

The court dismissed the seventh cause of action without prejudice as moot. Imhof sought an order approving his accommodation, but he alleged—and acknowledged in his briefing—that his latest accommodation request had already been approved and that he had been working from home for more than a year. His argument that the defendants might delay future accommodation requests did not keep the claim alive because he had not requested an injunction requiring faster responses and had not shown a sufficient basis to conclude that such future delays were likely.

Claims Against Lupin

The court denied the NYCHA Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against Lupin. Those claims arose under the New York City Human Rights Law and involved disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue, and hostile work environment. The court explained that an individual can be liable under that law for the individual’s own discriminatory conduct, for aiding and abetting another person’s discriminatory conduct, or for retaliation.

Although Imhof’s allegations about Lupin were limited and difficult to follow, the court held that they were not purely conclusory at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Imhof alleged that Lupin informed him he would receive an accommodation, directed or remained involved in NYCHA’s accommodation process, and caused or participated in delayed responses. Accepting those well-pleaded allegations as true, the court found that Imhof had alleged Lupin’s actual participation sufficiently to allow the claims to continue.

Other Rulings and Disposition

The court declined to grant leave to amend because Imhof had not requested permission to file another amended complaint. It denied the NYCHA Defendants’ motion for oral argument as moot. Overall, the court denied Sherrod’s motion to dismiss without prejudice; granted in part and denied in part the NYCHA Defendants’ motion; dismissed the fifth cause of action with prejudice as against NYCHA and Morrison; dismissed the seventh cause of action without prejudice as moot; and otherwise denied the NYCHA Defendants’ motion.