Akkad v. City of New York
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-04152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Akkad v. City of New York, Judge Hellerstein denied reconsideration, found amendment futile for some claims, and confirmed disability claim plausibly pleaded.
Achmat Akkad’s lawsuit may proceed on the disability-discrimination and religious-discrimination claims identified by the court, while the military-service and First Amendment claims remain dismissed and may not be added through the proposed amendment. The City of New York and Former Commissioner Loree Sutton must respond according to the deadlines set by the court.
What happened
Akkad v. City of New York concerns Achmat Akkad’s employment-discrimination lawsuit against the City of New York and Former Commissioner Loree Sutton. Akkad alleged discrimination based on disability, religion, military service, and his social media posts.
Akkad asked Judge Hellerstein to reconsider an earlier decision that dismissed his military-service and First Amendment claims without allowing amendment. He also asked for clarification about his disability-discrimination claim. The court reviewed Akkad’s proposed amended complaint.
Judge Hellerstein denied reconsideration and denied leave to amend because the proposed changes did not add enough facts to support the military-service or First Amendment claims. He confirmed that Akkad’s disability-discrimination claim was plausibly alleged, and ordered Akkad to file an amended complaint removing the dismissed claims.
The detailed version
- Akkad v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04152
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Achmat Akkad sued the City of New York and Former Commissioner Loree Sutton over alleged employment discrimination. The complaint asserted military-service discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, disability and religious discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law, and retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment and New York State Constitution. Akkad alleged that defendants treated him differently and ultimately fired him because of his mental-health disability, religion, veteran status, and social media posts.
Earlier Ruling
On October 19, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Akkad’s claims concerning military service and interference with First Amendment rights, finding no factual connection between his military service or any identified speech and his termination. The court denied the motion based on the statute of limitations and denied dismissal of Akkad’s religious-discrimination claims, finding those allegations legally sufficient. The court ordered Akkad to file an amended complaint conforming to those rulings.
Motion for Reconsideration
Akkad sought reconsideration of the decision not to allow him to amend the dismissed military-service and First Amendment claims. A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary request that requires the movant to identify controlling law or facts the court overlooked and that could change the result. Akkad relied on Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which generally provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires.
The court held that Akkad had not identified controlling law or facts justifying reconsideration. The court also reviewed his proposed amended complaint and found amendment futile. In this context, futility means that the proposed amendment still would not state a legally sufficient claim. The proposed changes provided no additional factual support connecting Akkad’s military service or social media posts to his termination and included only conclusory allegations. The court therefore denied Akkad’s request for leave to file an amended complaint containing those claims.
Disability-Discrimination Claim and Disposition
The court clarified that Akkad had plausibly alleged disability discrimination. The complaint alleged that Sutton did not want to hire “troubled” veterans, that the Department of Veterans Services did not recognize time Akkad needed to address mental-health issues as sick days, and that defendants made it difficult for him to take time off or leave for medical appointments. It also alleged that Sutton said the “real reason” she wanted to remove Akkad from the Department of Veterans Services was his mental-health disability. The court found that these allegations, together with the alleged resistance Akkad faced while managing his disability before his termination, stated a plausible claim.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motion for reconsideration. He directed Akkad to file an amended complaint removing the dismissed claims by April 9, 2021, directed defendants to answer by May 7, 2021, cancelled the scheduled oral argument, and set an initial case-management conference for May 21, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.