Jordan v. City of New York

Background

Tamara Jordan began working as a per diem hearing officer at the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission Tribunal in 2010. In 2011, that tribunal was consolidated with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, where Jordan became a hearing officer.

Jordan alleged that she had a kidney condition and qualified as disabled under federal, state, and local law. She alleged that, after requesting a reasonable accommodation on March 18, 2020, the City refused to assign her per diem work until January 2021. She asserted retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The City raised two issues in its pretrial submissions: whether Jordan’s accommodation request was protected activity under the New York State Human Rights Law, and whether punitive damages could be awarded against the City. The opinion states that trial was scheduled to begin on December 2.

New York State retaliation claim

A retaliation claim generally requires proof that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity. The court explained that federal courts have long treated a request for a reasonable workplace accommodation as protected activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The court reached a different conclusion under the New York State Human Rights Law. New York intermediate appellate courts had held that requesting a reasonable accommodation was not protected activity under that statute. Although the state law was amended in 2019 to require liberal construction, the court concluded that the amendment did not change this rule. The New York legislature had not adopted language comparable to a 2019 New York City amendment that expressly made an accommodation request protected activity under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Because the existing state appellate decisions controlled, the court dismissed Jordan’s New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim as a matter of law.

Punitive damages

The City argued that punitive damages were unavailable against a municipality. The court described a general common-law presumption against punitive damages from municipalities, but explained that a statute can overcome that presumption by authorizing punitive damages without exceptions that exclude governmental entities.

The court determined that the federal statutes supporting Jordan’s claims either did not authorize punitive damages or did not authorize them against governmental entities. It also noted that the New York State Human Rights Law limits punitive damages to certain cases involving private employers and housing discrimination.

The court reached a different result under the New York City Human Rights Law. That law expressly authorizes punitive damages, applies to municipal defendants, and contains no textually specified exception excluding municipalities. The court therefore held that punitive damages were available under the New York City Human Rights Law and denied the City’s request to dismiss Jordan’s punitive-damages request.

Disposition

The court concluded that the City’s November 7, 2024 motion in limine was granted in part and denied in part. The New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim was dismissed, and the motion to dismiss Jordan’s request for punitive damages was denied.