Hoffman v. City College of New York

Background

Tynan Hoffman alleged disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that he had major depressive disorder, which caused symptoms including loss of energy, reduced motivation, difficulty concentrating, and difficulty learning.

Hoffman worked at the City College library beginning in 2008 and became a full-time reference librarian in July 2013. The complaint alleged that librarians were required to have two master’s degrees, with the second degree completed within five years of employment. Hoffman had one master’s degree when hired and began pursuing the second in 2014. He alleged that his grades suffered because of his disability and that he received four incomplete grades.

In 2018, Hoffman requested and received an additional year to complete the second degree. In spring 2019, he requested another year. He was later informed that his contract would not be renewed. On May 11, 2019, he formally requested an accommodation and provided information about his medication, treatment, and doctors’ opinion that he would benefit from another one-year extension. He alleged that the defendants did not engage with him in a discussion about possible accommodations and denied his request on August 20, 2019. He appealed internally, and the appeal was denied. He also filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a notice of the right to sue.

Motions and governing standards

Hoffman moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and dropping his Section 503 claim. The defendants moved to dismiss. Because the proposed Second Amended Complaint had not yet been approved for filing, the court treated the defendants’ motion as directed at the operative Amended Complaint.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court dismisses a claim when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the legal authority to decide the claim. Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court dismisses a claim that does not allege enough facts to make relief legally plausible. Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss.

Dismissal of the Amended Complaint

The court held that City College of New York was not a legally cognizable entity separate from CUNY. It therefore dismissed all claims against City College.

The court also held that CUNY and its senior colleges are arms of New York State for purposes of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It dismissed Hoffman’s Americans with Disabilities Act employment-discrimination claim against CUNY under Rule 12(b)(1), concluding that Congress had not eliminated the state’s immunity for damages claims of that type. It likewise dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims against CUNY under Rule 12(b)(1), because New York had not consented to those claims being brought against the state in federal court.

The court also stated that Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act does not provide a private right of action. It dismissed Hoffman’s Section 503 claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The proposed Second Amended Complaint dropped that claim.

Leave to add a Section 504 claim

The court granted Hoffman leave to file a Second Amended Complaint against CUNY asserting a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. CUNY did not argue that sovereign immunity barred the proposed Section 504 claim. Instead, it argued that the amendment would be futile because Hoffman had not plausibly alleged disability discrimination or failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court explained that an employment-discrimination claim under Section 504 requires allegations that the employer is covered by the statute, the plaintiff has a disability, the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. A failure-to-accommodate claim requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability, the covered employer knew about it, the plaintiff could perform the essential job functions with a reasonable accommodation, and the employer refused the accommodation.

CUNY argued that Hoffman was not qualified because he had not obtained the required second master’s degree. The court concluded that it would be premature to decide that issue solely from the degree requirement. Hoffman alleged that he performed his librarian duties during the relevant periods, that his responsibilities would not change after he obtained the second degree, and that he worked in 2019 without complaints, discipline, or other problems. The court noted that whether a function is essential generally requires a fact-specific inquiry into both the employer’s job description and how the job is actually performed. It also noted that this case did not involve a legally required license or certification.

The court likewise concluded that whether a second one-year extension was a reasonable accommodation was a factual question. CUNY had granted one one-year extension but denied the second. Hoffman alleged facts suggesting that the second degree had little effect on the actual functions of a librarian’s job. The court held that these allegations plausibly supported the proposed Section 504 claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. It granted Hoffman’s motion for leave to amend to the extent that he could file a Second Amended Complaint against CUNY pleading a Section 504 Rehabilitation Act claim. The court directed that the Second Amended Complaint be filed by April 2, 2021. The opinion does not state that the dismissals were with or without prejudice.