Shine v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Wendy Shine sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), individually and on behalf of her minor child, C.W. She alleged that mold and moisture in their NYCHA apartment caused health problems, including shoulder injuries and respiratory symptoms for her and breathing problems for C.W., who has asthma. Shine claimed that NYCHA failed to make reasonable accommodations or perform remedial work. Her claims included alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

NYCHA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on its allegations.

Federal Disability Claims

The court analyzed the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act accommodation claims together. To plead a failure-to-accommodate claim, Shine had to plausibly allege, among other things, a disability, NYCHA’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of that disability, the need for an accommodation, and NYCHA’s refusal to provide one.

The court held that Shine did not plausibly allege that her own shoulder injury, pain, trouble sleeping, difficulty cleaning, breathing problems, or mucus buildup substantially limited a major life activity. The court found that allegations such as being unable to lift her arm “at times,” having “trouble sleeping,” and having “trouble” cleaning were too vague. It also found that the complaint did not provide enough information about Shine’s job, her work duties, or the weight of the mail buckets to show a substantial limitation in her ability to work or lift.

The court held that Shine plausibly alleged that C.W. had a disability. Specifically, the allegations that C.W. had asthma, trouble breathing, and needed an asthma machine were sufficient at the pleading stage to show a substantial limitation in the major life activity of breathing.

Even so, the court held that Shine failed to plausibly allege that NYCHA knew or reasonably should have known about her or C.W.’s disabilities. Her allegations showed that she complained about mold, but did not allege that she told NYCHA about either person’s disability or sought mold-related work as a disability accommodation. The court therefore did not reach whether the requested accommodation was necessary or whether NYCHA refused it.

State Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal disability claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. Those state tort claims were dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, although that claim was listed in the complaint.

The court granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted Shine leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days. Any amendment was to provide more facts about how Shine’s impairments substantially limited major life activities and whether NYCHA knew or reasonably should have known about Shine’s and C.W.’s alleged disabilities. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Entry 11.