Rosich v. La Salle Academy

Background

Joseph M. Rosich sued La Salle Academy, his former employer, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The complaint also referred to the New York City Human Rights Law, but the court found that it did not actually allege claims under that law.

Rosich alleged that a 2021 car accident caused severe anxiety about driving in the dark and that he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He requested a 10-minute grace period for arriving in the morning when his bus was late or during winter months. La Salle did not grant that request. Rosich also alleged that La Salle assigned him to a classroom without heat, failed to address his complaint about the temperature, and did not include his salary in an employment agreement for the 2023–2024 school year. He claimed these events reflected discrimination based on disability, age, and gender, and retaliation for requesting an accommodation.

Before filing this lawsuit, Rosich filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. That agency found no probable cause and dismissed the complaint. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later issued Rosich a notice allowing him to sue. La Salle moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Rosich opposed the motion and requested permission to file an amended complaint.

New York State and New York City Claims

The court granted La Salle’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion as to Rosich’s NYSHRL claims. The NYSHRL and New York City Human Rights Law contain election-of-remedies provisions that can bar a later lawsuit based on the same discriminatory conduct after a person files a complaint with the state or city human-rights agency.

The court found that Rosich’s NYSHRL age- and disability-discrimination claims arose from the same events investigated by the state agency, including the denied accommodation request, the alleged termination related to the employment agreement, and the classroom assignment. Because the state agency had dismissed those allegations after finding no probable cause, the court held that the election-of-remedies doctrine barred the related claims in federal court. The court also held that the doctrine barred Rosich’s NYSHRL gender-discrimination claim because it was based on the same events, even though he had not presented gender as a separate legal theory to the state agency.

The court stated that any NYCHRL claims would likewise be barred, although it found that the complaint did not actually allege violations of that law. These claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

ADA Failure-to-Accommodate Claim

The court dismissed Rosich’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim under Rule 12(b)(6). To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege, among other things, that the employer knew about the disability and that the requested accommodation was connected to that disability.

The court found that Rosich did not plausibly allege that he told La Salle that he had post-traumatic stress disorder or that he needed the requested arrival accommodation because of a disability. His allegations stated that he had difficulty driving in the dark, felt unsafe doing so after the accident, and requested a grace period or coverage for his homeroom duties. The court concluded that these allegations did not show that La Salle knew about a qualifying disability or knew that the requested changes were needed because of one.

Discrimination Claims

The court dismissed Rosich’s ADA, ADEA, and Title VII discrimination claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court considered three alleged adverse employment actions: the assignment to a classroom without heat, the denial of the requested accommodation, and the employment-agreement dispute.

The court explained that the classroom assignment could qualify as an adverse employment action. But it found that La Salle’s failure to respond to Rosich’s complaint about the cold classroom did not itself create a new disadvantageous change in his employment. The court also found that omitting the salary from the 2023–2024 agreement did not plausibly constitute an adverse employment action because the agreement and collective bargaining agreement provided for salary negotiations and did not impose a formal reduction or other adverse consequence. The court further stated that denying an accommodation, without an additional material change in working conditions, was insufficient by itself to establish an adverse employment action.

The court also found insufficient facts supporting discriminatory intent. Rosich identified two older male teachers, P.M. and R.C., as examples of alleged discrimination. The court concluded that the allegations did not establish that either teacher had actually suffered discrimination. It also found that Rosich did not provide enough information about potential comparators, including their qualifications, ages, job circumstances, or applications for positions. Two alleged incidents, without more, did not establish a general pattern of discrimination or provide the required minimal support for an inference that La Salle acted because of Rosich’s age or gender. The court dismissed the disability, age, and gender discrimination claims under the ADA, ADEA, and Title VII.

ADA Retaliation Claim

The court dismissed Rosich’s ADA retaliation claim under Rule 12(b)(6). A retaliation claim requires facts showing protected activity, the employer’s awareness of that activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection between the activity and the action.

The court held that Rosich did not plausibly allege that he engaged in protected activity because he did not allege that he told La Salle about his post-traumatic stress disorder or requested an accommodation for a disability. The court also found no adequate causal connection between the alleged request for a grace period and the assignment to the classroom without heat. Rosich alleged that the classroom assignment was motivated by sex and age, not that it resulted from his request for a disability accommodation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court considered Rosich’s proposed amended complaint and denied leave to amend. The proposed amendments added allegations about his discussions with La Salle personnel concerning the accident, the classroom assignment, other male coworkers, and the employment-agreement dispute. The court found that these additions did not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint.

The court held that the NYSHRL and any NYCHRL claims could not be amended because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over them. It held that amendment of the federal claims would also be futile because the proposed complaint still did not adequately allege disability notice, protected activity, discriminatory intent, or qualifying comparators.

Judge Rochon granted La Salle Academy’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, denied Rosich’s request for leave to amend, directed the clerk to terminate the listed motions, and ordered the case closed.