Johnson v. City of New York

Background

Delois Johnson alleged that her employer, the City of New York, discriminated against her because of her disability, failed to provide reasonable accommodations, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Johnson alleged that she has asthma and chronic bronchitis and that wearing a face mask worsened her respiratory symptoms.

Johnson requested permission to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. The City initially approved remote work through April 30, 2022. Johnson later requested an extension through August 30, 2022, but the City denied that request and required her to return to the office or use sick leave. The City later approved remote work for the period from June 30 through August 30, 2022. Johnson also alleged that the City denied her a promotion after she filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, and that supervisors later chastised her, altered her timecard, and attempted to discipline her.

The City moved to dismiss Johnson’s second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court considered the City’s submitted documents because the opinion found that Johnson had incorporated certain documents into her complaint, attached others, or relied on public administrative records.

ADA discrimination claim

The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss the discrimination claim. The City did not dispute at this stage that it was subject to the ADA, that Johnson had a disability covered by the statute, or that she could perform her job with a reasonable accommodation. The City argued that Johnson had not alleged an adverse employment action—that is, a disadvantageous change in employment.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the court explained that the disadvantage need not be significant, serious, or substantial. Johnson alleged that she was required to use eight sick days while her accommodation request was pending. The court found that this loss of sick leave was a material benefit and was enough at the pleading stage to support a discrimination claim. The court did not decide whether the alleged denial of a promotion independently affected the terms or conditions of Johnson’s employment.

Reasonable-accommodation claim

The court granted the City’s motion as to the reasonable-accommodation claim. To state this claim, Johnson had to plausibly allege, among other things, that the City knew about her disability and failed to provide an accommodation, and that any delay was caused by discriminatory intent.

The court found that Johnson had not alleged facts showing that the delay in approving her first request was motivated by discrimination. The first request was ultimately approved, and the court found that the two-week delay, standing alone, did not establish discriminatory intent. The court also found that Johnson had not supplied circumstances showing that the later delay in approving her appeal was motivated by discrimination rather than negligence or other non-discriminatory reasons. The court further explained that an employer’s failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process, by itself, does not establish an ADA claim. The court noted that the City ultimately approved the requested accommodation.

Hostile-work-environment claim

The court granted the City’s motion as to the hostile-work-environment claim. Such a claim requires facts plausibly showing that the workplace was permeated with disability-based intimidation, ridicule, or insults severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.

Johnson relied on nine alleged events, including the use of sick leave, statements about flextime, threats involving pay and termination, denial of a promotion, public chastisement, timecard changes, and an attempted disciplinary action. The court found that the events occurred over roughly two years and were episodic rather than continuous and concerted. It also noted that some events were promptly corrected, were not shown to have caused actual pay or discipline consequences, or were not connected to Johnson’s disability. Taken together, the allegations did not plausibly establish a hostile work environment.

Retaliation claim

The court denied the City’s motion as to the retaliation claim. Johnson alleged that she engaged in protected activity by complaining about disability discrimination and accommodation issues to City personnel, filing an administrative complaint, and filing this federal action.

The court rejected several alleged retaliatory acts as insufficient. Johnson did not allege that she was actually prevented from using flextime, that her pay was actually deducted or delayed, or that she was actually disciplined. The court also found that the denial of her second accommodation request was too remote from her last earlier complaint to establish causation based only on timing.

The court concluded, however, that the alleged denial of a promotion plausibly supported retaliation. Johnson filed her state administrative complaint on June 22, 2022. On August 8, 2022, a supervisor allegedly offered her a promotion and title increase, but the City denied the promotion while allegedly falsely stating that she lacked the necessary title. The court found that the timing and the alleged pretext plausibly suggested retaliation and could have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination complaint.

Further amendment and disposition

The court denied the City’s request to bar further amended complaints. Because this was the first opportunity for the court to identify the specific defects in Johnson’s pleading, and because another amendment was not yet clearly futile, the court allowed Johnson to replead the dismissed claims. The court ordered that any amended complaint could be filed by October 18, 2024.

The final disposition was that the City’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: it was granted as to the reasonable-accommodation and hostile-work-environment claims and denied as to the discrimination and retaliation claims. The City’s request to deny further amended complaints was also denied.