Dominguez v. Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District

Background

Aldo S. Dominguez sued the Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District, the Yonkers City School District, Edwin M. Quezada, and Ted von Hoene. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Dominguez alleged that he was severely and permanently immunocompromised after multiple kidney transplants and as a cancer survivor with atrial fibrillation and hypertension. He alleged that these conditions made him unable to work in person and placed him at high risk from COVID-19. According to the complaint, his physician said telework was the only reasonable accommodation during the pandemic. Dominguez alleged that he repeatedly requested telework for the 2020–2021 school year, but von Hoene rejected the requests. He also alleged that the defendants agreed to provide additional safety measures, including an N95 mask, face shields, an exclusive bathroom, and an air filter, but did not provide them when he reported to work. He then took medical leave and used approximately 128 sick days.

Dominguez further alleged that the District allowed non-disabled teachers to telework in several circumstances, including through virtual teaching assignments, school closures during COVID-19 outbreaks, and quarantine periods.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a legal claim. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not have to accept conclusory statements or legal conclusions presented as facts.

The court also applied the law-of-the-case doctrine. That doctrine generally counsels a court to follow its earlier rulings in the same case unless there is a compelling reason to revisit them. The court had previously dismissed Dominguez’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims for failing to allege that he was disabled under those statutes and could perform the essential functions of his job with the requested accommodations.

ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims

The court held that the Second Amended Complaint still did not adequately allege that Dominguez had a qualifying disability under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. Under those laws, the complaint had to allege that an impairment substantially limited one or more major life activities, among other requirements.

The court acknowledged Dominguez’s allegations about his medical conditions and their effects, including difficulty working in person, grocery shopping, attending appointments, breathing, walking, lifting, and performing manual tasks. But it found those allegations too conclusory because they did not sufficiently explain how his conditions actually and significantly affected his major life activities. The court concluded that the allegations did not plausibly state ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims.

The court therefore dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims without prejudice.

New York State Human Rights Law claims

The court stated that disability-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law are governed by the same legal standard as the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice to recommencing them in state court.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. It specifically dismissed Dominguez’s First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action without prejudice. The court granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by June 6, 2025. If Dominguez does not file one by that deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by June 27, 2025, if a Third Amended Complaint is filed.