Schwartz v. Middletown City School District and Richard DelMoro

Background

Gregory R. Schwartz brought disability-discrimination claims against Middletown City School District and Richard DelMoro under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, and the Rehabilitation Act. Schwartz had heart disease, hypertension, high blood pressure, and a prior heart attack. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he asked to teach remotely during the 2020–2021 school year. He also proposed curriculum-writing work, a “teacher on special assignment” position, and other alternatives.

The District denied the request for regular remote teaching and offered alternatives including unpaid leave, additional protective equipment, and improved workspace ventilation. Schwartz requested and received unpaid leave for the 2020–2021 school year and again for the 2021–2022 school year. He also asked about using accrued benefits, including paid sick or leave time, during his unpaid leave. The District did not allow him to use those benefits. Schwartz later resigned.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence leaves any legally important factual dispute for a trial. The court considered claims based on both adverse employment action and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Rulings on the Disability-Discrimination Theories

The court granted summary judgment on Schwartz’s theory that denying his request to teach remotely was an adverse employment action. The court explained that denying a requested accommodation does not, by itself, constitute an adverse employment action. It also found no evidence that classroom teachers were treated differently from one another during the 2020–2021 school year or that the denial materially changed Schwartz’s employment terms.

The court also granted summary judgment on Schwartz’s failure-to-accommodate claims. It held that being physically present to supervise students and maintain classroom order was an essential function of a classroom-teaching position in the District. Teaching remotely would not have allowed Schwartz to perform that function. The court further held that the alternative positions Schwartz identified were not vacant when he requested them, and the District was not required to create a new position.

The court did not decide whether the unpaid leave itself was a reasonable accommodation because it concluded that Schwartz had not identified another reasonable accommodation that the defendants refused to provide. The court also noted that Schwartz had been offered remote teaching during later periods when the District needed remote instruction, but he declined those offers.

Accrued-Benefits Claim

The court denied summary judgment on Schwartz’s claim that the District’s refusal to allow him to use accrued benefits, including paid sick or leave time, during unpaid leave was an adverse employment action taken because of his disability. The defendants did not adequately move for summary judgment on that theory. The court noted evidence that Schwartz asked about using his benefits and that a decision may have been made concerning whether his heart condition permitted their use. The defendants’ reliance on a collective bargaining agreement might provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, but the issue had not been sufficiently presented for summary judgment.

The claim may proceed against the District under the New York Human Rights Law. It may also proceed against DelMoro individually because the record contains a material factual dispute about whether DelMoro participated with the District’s personnel director in decisions concerning Schwartz’s accommodation requests and accrued benefits.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted as to Schwartz’s failure-to-accommodate claims and his theory that the denial of his accommodation requests was an adverse employment action. The motion was denied as to his claim that the District’s refusal to allow him to use accrued benefits during unpaid leave was an adverse employment action caused by disability discrimination. An in-person conference was scheduled, and the parties were directed to discuss possible trial dates and mediation.