Ramirez v. City of New York

Background

Alessandro Ramirez, a City employee, alleged that he had chronic asthma and hypertension that limited his mobility. He claimed that his work could be performed remotely and that the City initially granted repeated requests to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. He alleged that the City later required him to return to an on-site workplace, assigned him duties requiring on-site work, disciplined him, gave him poor evaluations, denied vacation time, and did not permanently approve his remote-work requests.

Ramirez asserted federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate his disability, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. He also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Federal Claims

The court treated the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) under the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Under that standard, a complaint must allege enough facts to make a claim plausible, and the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true but need not accept conclusory statements.

The court did not decide whether Ramirez’s allegations about denied vacation time were properly exhausted before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It stated that the federal claims failed on the merits. The court also concluded that the alleged 2021 conduct fell within the applicable limitations period for the Rehabilitation Act claims.

For the failure-to-accommodate claims, the City did not dispute that Ramirez had a covered disability of which it knew. The court held, however, that Ramirez did not adequately allege that the City refused his remote-work accommodation. The complaint and incorporated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge indicated that he continued working remotely from 2020 through the present and was not terminated, demoted, or docked wages. The court therefore found that the allegations supported the inference that Ramirez was not actually forced to work in person. The alleged orders to return on site, unspecified discipline and poor evaluations, and denial of indefinite remote work did not adequately establish a denial of accommodation. The court also found no sufficient allegation of discriminatory intent to support a constructive-denial theory.

For retaliation, the court found that Ramirez adequately identified protected activity when he filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, but did not adequately allege a materially adverse action. The court concluded that the alleged rescission of a remote-work approval did not show that he was actually required to work in person. It also found that the allegations about discipline, poor evaluations, and denied vacation time were too vague to show an action that could have dissuaded a reasonable worker from reporting discrimination.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the federal failure-to-accommodate claims and the federal retaliation claims. It also granted the motion to dismiss the federal hostile-work-environment claims. The court stated that Ramirez had abandoned that claim by not meaningfully responding to the City’s arguments and, independently, that the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to support such a claim.

State and Local Claims

Because the court concluded that Ramirez failed to state a federal claim and found no complete diversity between the parties, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and local claims. It did not address the City’s arguments for dismissing those claims. The court dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion, lift the stay, and close the case.