Zabar v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

Maya Zabar, a New York City Department of Education teacher, alleged that she had major depression and generalized anxiety disorder. She claimed that school administrators harassed and retaliated against her after she requested a classroom change and asked that school-related instructions, reminders, and updates be provided in writing. She also alleged retaliation for union activities, including advocating for teachers and reporting concerns about an assistant principal, and for filing a disability-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Zabar brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Rulings on ADA Claims Against the Department of Education

The court ruled that ADA claims based on adverse employment actions before May 19, 2017, were barred by the 300-day deadline for filing an administrative charge. The court rejected Zabar’s argument that the alleged conduct was part of a continuing violation because she alleged a series of incidents, not a discriminatory policy or mechanism.

The court dismissed the ADA reasonable-accommodation claim. Although Zabar adequately alleged that her mental-health conditions limited her ability to work and that the Department of Education knew about them, she did not explain how receiving school communications in writing would allow her to perform the essential functions of teaching. The court also dismissed the ADA hostile-work-environment claim because the complaint did not allege facts linking the alleged adverse actions to her disability.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the ADA retaliation claim against the Department of Education. Zabar alleged that she engaged in protected activity by requesting accommodations and filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge, followed by disciplinary letters and poor evaluations close enough in time to support an inference of retaliation.

Section 1983 First Amendment Claim

The court dismissed Zabar’s claim against the Department of Education under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits certain claims for constitutional violations by state or local actors. A municipality generally cannot be held liable on that basis unless an official policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. The court found that Zabar alleged no Department of Education policy or custom.

The court also dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against the individual defendants because qualified immunity protected them. Qualified immunity can shield officials from personal liability for damages when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated the Constitution. The court concluded that the law concerning whether a public-school teacher’s union-related speech was protected speech by a private citizen was not clearly established when the alleged conduct occurred.

New York State and New York City Claims

The court dismissed all claims against Marisol Rosales, the superintendent, because the complaint did not plead compliance with the required notice-of-claim procedure. The court also dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law reasonable-accommodation and hostile-work-environment claims, applying the same reasoning used for the corresponding ADA claims.

The court dismissed the New York State and New York City disability-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against Manuel Ureña, Sari Perez, and Lynn Rosales because the complaint did not allege facts showing that disability was a motivating factor or that the defendants treated Zabar less well because of disability.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claims against Ureña, Perez, and Lynn Rosales. It also denied the motion as to the corresponding New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claims. The alleged disciplinary actions occurred close enough in time to Zabar’s accommodation requests or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge to support an inference of retaliation.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The claims that survived were the ADA retaliation claim against the Department of Education and the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claims against Ureña, Perez, and Lynn Rosales. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Marisol Rosales as a defendant and directed the defendants to state whether they intended to seek summary judgment.