Dodd v. State of New York

Background

Alexia Dodd, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application seeking both an immediate temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. She asked the court to temporarily stop the defendants from terminating her employment, threatening termination, harassing, intimidating, or retaliating against her. She also asked the court to require compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing an accommodation that her doctor ordered.

Dodd stated that she worked as an administrative law judge at the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. She said employees sprayed Lysol, Febreeze, and other aerosols in the workplace, causing her severe respiratory distress. After notifying her employer and receiving medication from her pulmonologist, she requested remote-work accommodations. According to Dodd, Paula Gaylord told her that remote work was not an option for her position and that failure to return a medical form within three days could lead to further administrative action, including a possible recommendation that her employment be terminated.

Temporary restraining order

The court had previously concluded that an immediate temporary restraining order could not issue because Dodd had not met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). The court directed her either to provide the information required for an order without notice to defendants or to file proof that defendants had been served. Dodd partially complied and stated that she had ordered personal service on the State of New York, but the record did not establish that defendants had actually received the application.

Rule 65(b)(1) requires specific facts clearly showing that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard. It also requires a written certification describing efforts to give notice and the reasons notice should not be required. The court found that Dodd had not provided proof of service and had not explained why notice should not be required.

The court further held that, even if Dodd had satisfied the notice-related requirement, the application did not clearly show that immediate irreparable harm would occur before defendants could respond. Dodd identified the threatened loss of her employment and income as the harm she would suffer. The court explained that, except in extraordinary circumstances, threatened loss of permanent employment alone is not enough to establish irreparable injury for an immediate temporary restraining order.

Accordingly, the court denied the application to the extent it sought an immediate temporary restraining order.

Preliminary injunction

The court treated Dodd’s request for a preliminary injunction separately. A preliminary injunction may issue only after notice to the opposing parties. The court therefore required Dodd to serve all defendants with the application and a copy of the order. It scheduled an in-person preliminary-injunction hearing for June 26, 2025, and stated that the parties could jointly request a briefing schedule before the hearing.

Disposition

The court denied the application to the extent it sought an immediate temporary restraining order. It ordered Dodd to file proof of service on all defendants by May 23, 2025. The court did not resolve the preliminary-injunction request or the underlying employment and accommodation issues.