Cangro v. New York City Department of Finance

Background

Emil Cangro alleged that he was employed by the New York City Department of Finance as a Principal Administrative Associate. He alleged that he had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, severe asthma, and reduced lung capacity after exposure to toxic dust following the September 11 attacks. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he worked remotely because of the health risks he faced.

In March 2022, the City’s Equal Employment Opportunity office allowed Cangro to work remotely three days per week and in person at the City’s 1 Centre Street location two days per week. Cangro requested permission to work from the Staten Island Business Center instead of 1 Centre Street, citing difficulties commuting by public transportation while wearing a mask and ventilation and climate-control problems at 1 Centre Street. The request was denied.

In June 2023, Cangro requested permanent remote work based on medical reports stating that he could not walk more than ten feet without losing his breath. He later amended that request to seek remote work three days per week and work at the Staten Island Business Center two days per week. The Equal Employment Opportunity office denied the amended request and required him to work at 1 Centre Street five days per week. On appeal, the City allowed him to work from home two days per week but continued to deny the request to work from the Staten Island Business Center.

Claims and Motion

Cangro’s amended complaint asserted four claims: disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act; failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act; failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the New York City Human Rights Law; and failure to engage in the cooperative discussion required by the New York City Human Rights Law. The New York City Department of Finance and the City of New York moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Court’s Analysis

For the Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination claim, the court assumed for purposes of the motion that Cangro was disabled, qualified to perform his job, and that the defendants were covered employers. The court held, however, that Cangro had not plausibly alleged a materially adverse employment action. Requiring him to work part-time at 1 Centre Street, rather than allowing his preferred accommodation, was described as an inconvenience rather than a sufficiently serious change in the terms or conditions of employment. The court also noted that Cangro did not allege that the conditions caused consequences such as hospitalization, medical leave, or reduced pay. The court therefore dismissed the ADA discrimination claim.

For the ADA and New York City Human Rights Law failure-to-accommodate claims, the court held that Cangro had not adequately alleged that working entirely remotely or working partly from the Staten Island Business Center would allow him to perform his job’s essential functions. The court stated that Cangro had not described those essential functions or explained factually how his requested arrangements would allow him to perform them. His general statements that he could perform the essential functions with an accommodation were not enough. The court dismissed both failure-to-accommodate claims.

For the New York City Human Rights Law cooperative-dialogue claim, the court held that Cangro’s general statements that the defendants failed to communicate or consider his requests were conclusory. The court also found that his other allegations showed the defendants had allowed him to submit accommodation requests, considered and decided them, provided explanations and updates, considered his appeals, and granted him partial relief by allowing some remote work. Those allegations did not support a plausible inference that the defendants failed to engage in the required cooperative dialogue. The court dismissed this claim as well.

Disposition

Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the defendants’ motion in its entirety. The order states that the motion to dismiss Cangro’s ADA discrimination claim, ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, New York City Human Rights Law failure-to-accommodate claim, and New York City Human Rights Law cooperative-dialogue claim was granted without prejudice. The court permitted Cangro to propose a second amended complaint no later than 30 days after the order’s entry and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entry 15.