MacNeal v. New York City Commission on Human Rights
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05890
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In MacNeal v. New York City Commission, Judge Schofield granted reconsideration on an Americans with Disabilities Act claim and otherwise denied it.
Kelly MacNeal’s claims were affected. The order preserved the failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against unidentified police officers, left identified racial-discrimination claims under federal and New York City law surviving, and otherwise denied reconsideration. The City defendants must assist with identifying and locating the officers, while MacNeal must provide any identifying information she has. The landlord was not subject to the requested injunction because it was not a party.
What happened
In MacNeal v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, Kelly MacNeal, representing herself, asked the court to reconsider an earlier order and to consolidate this case with another case she filed. The earlier order had partly granted and partly denied the defendants’ request to dismiss.
The court rejected MacNeal’s theory that the City human-rights agency violated her rights by refusing to pursue disability claims against her landlord. It also left in place the dismissal of her excessive-force claim against police officers and denied her requests for an order against her landlord and to combine the two cases. But the court treated her allegations about police officers disregarding her back injuries during an involuntary evaluation as stating a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted MacNeal’s second reconsideration motion as to the failure-to-accommodate claim and otherwise denied it. The surviving claims identified by the court include racial-discrimination claims under federal civil-rights law and New York City law, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the unidentified officers. The court also ordered MacNeal to provide information identifying the officers and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- MacNeal v. New York City Commission on Human Rights · No. 1:23-cv-05890
- Lorna Schofield
- July 10, 2025
Background
Kelly MacNeal, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a second motion asking the court to reconsider its April 4, 2025, order. That earlier order denied her first reconsideration motion and denied her request to consolidate this case with another case she filed, No. 24 Civ. 6017 (LGS) (JW) (S.D.N.Y.). The earlier order concerned a February 27, 2025, decision that had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Claims Against the City Human-Rights Agency
MacNeal argued that her claims against the New York City Commission on Human Rights arose from the agency’s failure to provide legal assistance or file a complaint on her behalf against her landlord for alleged disability-law violations. The court held that this theory was not legally viable because there is no constitutional or federal statutory right to have a municipal agency enforce a private plaintiff’s rights. The court therefore rejected a federal civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on that alleged failure.
The order separately identified as surviving claims MacNeal’s racial-discrimination claims under § 1983 and the New York City Human Rights Law concerning the agency’s failure to file a complaint against her landlord based on discrimination involving her subsidized tenant status. The opinion does not further explain those surviving claims in this order.
Excessive-Force Claim
MacNeal argued that the dismissal of her excessive-force claim against police officers failed to account for her mental trauma. The court noted allegations of humiliation, psychological trauma, unexplained blood-test abnormalities, and physical assault, but also noted that the amended complaint did not allege additional physical injuries and that MacNeal’s motion stated the officers had “spared [her] the physical assault” in this encounter. The court concluded that the allegations were insufficient to support reconsideration of the excessive-force dismissal.
Failure-to-Accommodate Claim
MacNeal argued that the court should not have dismissed a failure-to-accommodate claim against the police officers because she had made her need for accommodation clear. Although the amended complaint did not expressly identify this as a separate cause of action, the court construed MacNeal’s submissions liberally and deemed the amended complaint to assert a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court held that the allegations adequately pleaded that claim. According to the complaint, MacNeal warned the officers about her back injuries, but they disregarded those warnings, shoved her into an unstable portable chair, and strapped her to it, causing her back to spasm. Accepting those allegations as true at this stage, the court found that she adequately alleged a disability, discrimination or exclusion from a public entity’s services, and a connection between the alleged discrimination and her disability.
Requests for Injunctive Relief and Consolidation
MacNeal asked the court to order her landlord to enforce a no-smoking policy with penalties. The court denied that request because the landlord was not a party to the lawsuit and courts generally may not issue orders against nonparties.
The court also denied reconsideration of its refusal to consolidate this case with MacNeal’s other case. It explained that the two matters involved separate discovery and that consolidation would likely delay this case, where discovery was ongoing. The court also noted that the motions to dismiss in the other case had not been fully briefed.
Disposition
The order states: “Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim and otherwise DENIED.” The court directed MacNeal to provide the City defendant with identifying information about the police officers by July 18, 2025. It directed the City defendant to update the court by August 1, 2025, about efforts to identify the officers and provide addresses for service.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.