Cordero v. City University of New York

Background

Yolanda Cordero alleges that the City University of New York (CUNY) terminated her employment after she sought extended medical leave following surgery for kidney cancer. She alleges claims against CUNY and supervisors Lakisha Skrine, Sergine Louis, and Thomas Heinrich (the Individual Defendants) under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Her claims include failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, discrimination, and retaliation.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately plead a legally recognized claim. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The defendants objected, arguing that Cordero had not sufficiently alleged a qualifying disability, notice, ability to perform the essential functions of her job with an accommodation, or causation.

Court’s Analysis

Qualifying disability. The court explained that a qualifying disability under the Rehabilitation Act must substantially limit a major life activity. The NYSHRL and NYCHRL use broader disability standards and do not require that showing. Cordero alleged that she underwent surgery to treat kidney cancer, could not perform remote work afterward, and could not return to work until July 2024. The court held that these allegations adequately pleaded a qualifying disability under the Rehabilitation Act and therefore also under the state and city laws at issue.

Notice. The court explained that an employer has notice when it knew or reasonably should have known that an employee was disabled. Cordero alleged that she requested remote work, was directed to take Family and Medical Leave Act leave, later requested sick leave because she could not work remotely after surgery, maintained contact with Skrine and Louis, provided a medical note to Human Resources, and repeatedly informed CUNY about her medical condition. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly showed that the defendants knew she was requesting medical leave and an accommodation because of her cancer.

Reasonable accommodation. For the Rehabilitation Act and NYSHRL claims, Cordero had to allege that she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that an employer generally need not keep a position open indefinitely, but explained that whether a requested leave was finite, reasonable, and feasible is usually a fact-based question not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. Cordero alleged that she requested continued medical leave and that the defendants cut off her pay and benefits instead of extending her leave or discussing other accommodations. The court held that she plausibly alleged a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Causation. For the Rehabilitation Act and NYSHRL claims, the court described the requirement as but-for causation: the adverse employment action would not have occurred without the disability or protected activity. Under the NYCHRL, the plaintiff must show that she was treated less well because of discriminatory intent. The court found it plausible that the defendants learned the extent of Cordero’s disability three to four months before removing her from the payroll and terminating her benefits. It concluded that she adequately pleaded discrimination based on her disability and retaliation for requesting an accommodation.

Individual defendants and amendment. The defendants argued that the Individual Defendants could not be liable under the NYSHRL merely as individual employers and could not be liable under the NYCHRL based only on supervisory status. The court agreed that the NYSHRL does not make employees individually liable as employers for discrimination claims and that supervisory status alone is insufficient under the NYCHRL. But it found that it was not clear that Cordero could not state legally sufficient claims against the Individual Defendants and therefore allowed the opportunity to seek leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It dismissed Count V with prejudice. The opinion identifies Count V as Cordero’s NYSHRL retaliation claim against all defendants. It dismissed Counts IV and VI through X against the Individual Defendants, without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend those counts as to the Individual Defendants no later than September 3, 2026. Any such motion had to include a proposed amended complaint and a red-lined version showing the changes from the first amended complaint. The order did not dismiss the other claims identified in the conclusion.