Bento v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

Background

Anthony Bento sued the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and related claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.

Bento had worked for DCAS as a thermostat repairer for approximately one year. He alleged that he had multiple sclerosis and difficulty working eight-hour days consecutively. In September 2016, he requested a three-day work schedule as an accommodation. DCAS denied that request based on undue hardship, including the overtime and staffing consequences described in the complaint. Bento later proposed other accommodations, including job transfers and a designated parking space. DCAS denied those requests but offered a stationary position and a flexible start time. Bento rejected that proposal and sought additional alternatives.

Bento requested FMLA leave on April 21, 2017. DCAS notified him on April 28, 2017, that he had been terminated as of April 20, 2017. He later filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights and a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The state agency found no probable cause, and the EEOC adopted that finding and issued a notice of his right to sue.

ADA Claims

DCAS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). The court explained that an ADA discrimination claimant generally must file an administrative charge with the appropriate state or local agency or the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful act.

The court treated April 28, 2017—the date Bento learned of his termination—as the latest relevant date for his ADA discrimination claim. The court calculated that the 300-day deadline was February 22, 2018. Bento filed his EEOC charge on April 24, 2018, so the court held that the ADA claims were untimely. The court noted that even the March 26, 2018, date Bento gave for filing with the state agency was after the deadline.

Bento argued that the deadline should be extended fairly because his prior attorney told him that he had one year to file and later became ill. The court rejected that argument. It held that Bento had not shown reasonable diligence or an extraordinary circumstance, and that the alleged attorney neglect did not justify extending the deadline. The court also held that Bento had not explained how his education or multiple sclerosis prevented him from meeting the deadline or monitoring the status of his claims. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claims as time-barred. The court also construed Bento’s unspecified hostile-work-environment claim as an ADA claim and dismissed it as time-barred for the same reasons.

FMLA Claim

The FMLA generally requires an action to be filed within two years after the last event constituting the alleged violation. A three-year period can apply to a willful violation. The court concluded that Bento’s claim accrued when he received notice of his termination on April 28, 2017, making April 28, 2019, the ordinary filing deadline. Bento filed the lawsuit on May 31, 2019.

The court stated that the timing of Bento’s FMLA-leave request and termination could support an inference of willful retaliation. However, the complaint did not allege that Bento had worked at least 1,250 hours for DCAS, a basic FMLA eligibility requirement. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the FMLA claim. Because Bento offered facts in his opposition papers that might be relevant, the court granted him permission to move to replead that claim in an amended complaint.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—involving the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. The order did not decide those claims on their merits.

Disposition

The court granted DCAS’s motion to dismiss. Bento’s ADA and FMLA claims were dismissed, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. Bento was permitted to move for leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days, by May 8, 2020, with a proposed amended complaint, a comparison showing the changes, and a supporting memorandum. The order stated that failure to make a timely motion, or denial of the motion as futile, would result in dismissal of the dismissed claims with prejudice, except for claims over which the court had simply declined to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction.