Warmin v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Adam Warmin worked as a probationary special education teacher for the New York City Department of Education at I.S. 254 from 2012 until 2015. He had dyslexia, which caused difficulty with reading and writing. After his employment ended, he brought claims against the Department of Education and Alexis Marrero, as well as other defendants who were no longer part of the remaining claims. He alleged discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation related to his disability and his request for reasonable accommodations.

Earlier rulings dismissed most of Warmin’s claims and allowed three retaliation theories to proceed: (1) that the Department of Education retaliated by denying him tenure and ending his employment; (2) that Marrero retaliated by denying him tenure and ending his employment; and (3) that the Department of Education retaliated by failing to complete a later background investigation quickly enough, causing him to lose a teaching opportunity at P.S. 46.

Warmin formally requested reasonable accommodations on June 9, 2015. The Department determined that the request was medically warranted and partially granted it by providing two additional hours to complete writing tasks, effective September 2015. On June 19, 2015, he was notified that he would not receive certification of completion of probation and that his employment would end 60 days later.

The record also showed that Marrero had entered, or was in the process of entering, a recommendation to deny Warmin tenure by May 12, 2015—before Warmin submitted his accommodation request. The defendants attributed the employment decision to poor performance evaluations and disciplinary issues, including problems involving a student’s individualized education plan, written communications, and classroom performance.

In 2016, Warmin was nominated for a teaching position at P.S. 46, subject to a background investigation. The Department’s Office of Personnel Investigation began that investigation in September 2016. The principal withdrew the nomination on October 7, 2016, while the investigation was still pending. The Department stated that the office had no legal obligation to complete investigations within 30 days and that the investigation was proceeding without delay.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify evidence—not merely speculation or conclusory allegations—that could support a trial verdict in its favor.

For retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law, a plaintiff generally must show protected activity, the employer’s awareness of that activity, an adverse employment action, and a connection between the activity and the action. After that showing, the employer may provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, which the plaintiff must show was a pretext, meaning a false reason masking unlawful retaliation. The New York City Human Rights Law uses a broader standard, but still requires evidence linking the challenged conduct to a discriminatory motive.

Court’s analysis

Retaliatory termination. The court accepted that requesting a reasonable accommodation was protected activity and that denial of tenure or termination was an adverse employment action. It nevertheless held that Warmin could not establish causation. Marrero’s May 12, 2015 email showed that the decision to deny tenure had been made or was already in process no later than that date, several weeks before Warmin’s June 9 accommodation request. The court therefore found that the termination decision could not have been retaliation for that later request.

The court rejected Warmin’s argument that his disability, Marrero’s knowledge of the disability, or Marrero’s April 2015 advice about requesting an accommodation should count as protected activity. The court explained that having a disability or being told that an accommodation could be requested is not itself protected activity. It also stated that Warmin’s discrimination and accommodation claims had already been dismissed in earlier proceedings.

The court further held that, even if Warmin had established an initial retaliation case, the defendants gave legitimate reasons for ending his employment: poor performance evaluations, disciplinary letters, and failure to improve after feedback. Warmin’s disagreement with those evaluations and disciplinary decisions did not provide sufficient evidence that the stated reasons were a pretext. The court granted summary judgment to the Department of Education on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act termination-retaliation claims and to Marrero on the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law termination-retaliation claims.

Background-investigation claim. The court also granted summary judgment on Warmin’s claim that the Department of Education retaliated by failing to complete his background investigation within 30 days. At the earlier pleading stage, the court had accepted Warmin’s allegation that the Department was required to complete the paperwork within that period. At summary judgment, however, Warmin offered no evidence supporting that alleged deadline, while the record showed that the Office of Personnel Investigation had no contractual, statutory, or other legal obligation to complete investigations within a specific time.

The court also found no evidence that the investigation was unduly delayed. The principal withdrew Warmin’s nomination about three weeks after the investigation began, while the investigation was still within the Department’s normal timeframe. The court held that Warmin had not shown an adverse employment action based on the failure to complete the investigation within 30 days.

In addition, the court held that the more than 14-month gap between Warmin’s accommodation request and the 2016 investigation was too long, by itself, to support an inference of causation. The court noted that Warmin had accepted a substitute-teaching position during the intervening period. Finally, the Department offered non-retaliatory explanations for the timing of the investigation and the withdrawal of the nomination, including the need to conduct a thorough investigation, factors affecting investigation timing, information Warmin had been asked to provide, and the school’s staffing needs. Warmin offered no evidence that those explanations were pretextual.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full, terminated the pending motions, adjourned the remaining dates, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.