Cornetta v. Town of Highlands

Background

Joseph Cornetta asserted claims against the Town of Highlands, Chief of Police Frank Pierri, the Village of Highland Falls, Mayor Joseph D’Onofrio, Police Chief Kenneth Scott, and James DiSalvo. His claims arose under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The Village Defendants previously obtained dismissal of Cornetta’s First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court allowed Cornetta to amend. After further amendments, including the Third Amended Complaint, the Village Defendants again moved to dismiss. The Town Defendants had not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the Third Amended Complaint.

RICO claim

The court dismissed Cornetta’s civil RICO claim against the Village Defendants. A civil RICO plaintiff must plausibly allege injury to business or property caused by the alleged RICO violation. Cornetta alleged that a report describing his termination as based on “incompetence or misconduct” led to the loss of his police-officer certification and prevented future employment in law enforcement. The court held that the loss of professional opportunities and the resulting economic consequences did not constitute the type of injury to business or property required for civil RICO standing.

ADA claims against individual defendants

The court dismissed Cornetta’s ADA claims against Mayor D’Onofrio, Police Chief Scott, and DiSalvo. Cornetta did not oppose this part of the motion, and the court treated the claims as abandoned. The court also ruled that, independently, the ADA does not impose individual liability on these defendants.

Failure-to-accommodate claims

Cornetta alleged that the Village Defendants failed to accommodate his disability under the ADA and the NYSHRL. To state such a claim, he needed to plausibly allege, among other things, that the employer knew about his disability, that he requested an accommodation, and that the employer refused to provide one.

The court found these allegations insufficient. The only alleged notice involved a complaint to Chief of Police Frank Pierri, who was identified as a Town Defendant, not a Village Defendant. Cornetta did not allege that he requested an accommodation from the Village Defendants. His allegation that clerical positions were available did not establish that he requested such a position or that it would have allowed him to perform his job as a detective. The court therefore dismissed the failure-to-accommodate theories under both the ADA and the NYSHRL against the Village Defendants.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court also dismissed Cornetta’s ADA and NYSHRL hostile-work-environment theories against the Village Defendants. It concluded that the Third Amended Complaint added no meaningful factual allegations showing that the Village Defendants created a hostile work environment because of his disability. The court found that the new allegations were principally the same as those in the earlier complaint and remained conclusory.

Retaliation claims

Cornetta added allegations that he complained about discrimination to Pat Flynn and “Chief Quinn.” The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show that the Village Defendants knew about protected activity because Cornetta alleged that Flynn was not the Village’s mayor and that Quinn had retired and been replaced by Pierri. The court dismissed the retaliation theories in the First through Fourth Claims for Relief against the Village Defendants.

Cornetta also asserted a Sixth Claim for Relief under the NYSHRL, alleging retaliation for filing the lawsuit. He alleged that the Village Defendants reported to New York State Criminal Justice Services that he had been terminated for “incompetence or misconduct,” resulting in the revocation of his certification. The court held that, on the motion papers, it could not determine as a matter of law that Cornetta had failed to state a plausible retaliation claim concerning the description of his termination in that report. That claim will proceed to discovery.

Disposition

Judge Halpern granted the Village Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in part. The court dismissed with prejudice the specified failure-to-accommodate, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation theories under the ADA and NYSHRL; the ADA claims against D’Onofrio, Scott, and DiSalvo; and the RICO claim against the Village Defendants. The court allowed the ADA disparate-treatment claim against the Village, the NYSHRL disparate-treatment claim against the Village Defendants, and the Sixth Claim for Relief alleging NYSHRL retaliation against the Village Defendants to proceed to discovery. The Village Defendants were ordered to answer by October 8, 2021. The court stated that Cornetta could seek permission to move for a default judgment against the Town Defendants.