Smith v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Patrick Dennis Smith, a pro se special education teacher, sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and the New York City Department of Finance (DOF). The court construed his Second Amended Complaint as asserting claims for age discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Smith alleged that he had hypertension and partial hearing loss. He requested a transfer from his Bronx school to a school closer to his home, stating that his commute worsened his hearing and hypertension. DOE denied the request as not medically warranted. Smith also alleged that DOE failed to provide a certified special-education co-teacher and gave him negative performance evaluations after he filed administrative and federal complaints.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court interpreted Smith’s pro se pleadings liberally and considered allegations from his complaints and attached documents.

Claims Against the Department of Finance

The court dismissed all claims against DOF because the complaints named DOF as a defendant but contained no allegations explaining how DOF violated the law or harmed Smith. The court did not specify that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Discrimination Claims Against DOE

The court granted DOE’s motion to dismiss Smith’s disparate-treatment discrimination claims under the ADEA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act. The court concluded that the denial of Smith’s transfer request was not a materially adverse employment action because he did not allege that the transfer would have changed his pay, authority, prestige, responsibilities, or other employment conditions. The negative performance evaluations also did not qualify because Smith did not allege that they caused any negative consequences. Finally, although the lack of a certified co-teacher could qualify as an adverse action in some circumstances, Smith did not allege facts suggesting that DOE denied him a co-teacher because of his age or disability, or that similarly situated teachers received different treatment.

The court also held that the ADEA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims were timely as to the events Smith identified from 2017 and 2018. It rejected DOE’s argument that the co-teacher and performance-review allegations were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, reasoning that Smith claimed those actions were retaliation for protected complaints and therefore were reasonably related to his administrative claims.

Failure-to-Accommodate Claims

The court denied DOE’s motion to dismiss Smith’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The court found that Smith had not alleged enough facts to show that his hypertension substantially limited a major life activity, so hypertension could not support the claim. DOE conceded, however, that hearing loss qualifies as a disability under the ADA, and Smith alleged that he gave DOE medical information about his hearing loss and its worsening during his subway commute.

The court questioned whether transferring Smith to a closer school was a reasonable accommodation, noting possible alternatives such as earplugs, noise-canceling headphones, driving, or taking a bus. But whether the requested transfer was reasonable required a fact-specific inquiry that the court would not resolve on a motion to dismiss. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claim therefore remained pending.

Retaliation Claims

The court also allowed Smith’s retaliation claims under the ADEA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act to proceed. It held that negative performance evaluations can be materially adverse for retaliation purposes even when they are not adverse employment actions for a discrimination claim. The court likewise concluded that the alleged denial of a qualified co-teacher could be materially adverse because it might discourage a reasonable worker from reporting discrimination. The timing between Smith’s federal lawsuit and the alleged October 2018 retaliation was sufficient at the pleading stage to support a possible causal connection.

NYSHRL and NYCHRL Claims

Although Smith did not check the complaint-form boxes for the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, the court construed his pleadings as asserting discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation claims under those laws. The court declined to dismiss those claims merely because Smith discussed them in his opposition brief. It dismissed the Rehabilitation Act disparate-treatment claim for the reasons stated earlier, but allowed the Rehabilitation Act retaliation and failure-to-accommodate claims to proceed. Because DOE did not address the merits of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, those claims also proceeded.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Smith leave to move to file a Third Amended Complaint, setting a deadline of December 16, 2019. The final disposition was: all claims against DOF dismissed; DOE’s motion to dismiss the ADEA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims granted; and DOE’s motion otherwise denied. The opinion did not add a prejudice designation to the dismissals.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the Memorandum Opinion and Order.