Cruz v. City Of New York

Background

Crystal Cruz, an employee of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), sued HHC, the City of New York, Nicole Phillips, Dana Stein, and Blanche Greenfield. She alleged disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL); age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL; and retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.

Cruz alleged that she had physical disabilities and post-traumatic stress disorder. She went on medical leave in March 2016. Her doctors cleared her to return to work in December 2018, subject to restrictions including limits on working hours, lifting, and overhead work, as well as use of an ergonomic chair. Cruz applied for 50 HHC jobs and interviewed for five but was not hired. She alleged that the defendants failed to help her obtain a clerical position that accommodated her disabilities.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard and timeliness

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a legal claim plausible. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

The court held that Cruz’s federal claims based on discriminatory or retaliatory acts occurring before October 22, 2019 were time-barred. Her NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims based on acts occurring before March 8, 2018 were also time-barred. The court rejected her argument that the continuing-violation doctrine preserved the older claims. That doctrine can sometimes treat related discriminatory acts as part of an ongoing violation, but the court found that Cruz alleged separate acts before 2016 and after 2018, separated by a lengthy period of medical leave, rather than a continuing policy or pattern.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court allowed Cruz’s disability-discrimination claims concerning the period after December 2018 to proceed. It found that she adequately alleged that she had a disability, that the relevant defendants knew about it, and that she could perform a job’s essential functions with reasonable accommodations. She also alleged that the defendants failed to place her in a clerical position that would accommodate her limitations.

The court declined to decide on a motion to dismiss whether Cruz, HHC, or both had made sufficient efforts to find her a suitable position. The reasonableness of an accommodation is fact-specific and may require evidence obtained through discovery. The court also did not decide whether the City was a proper defendant or whether the ADA permits claims against the individual defendants, because the defendants had not presented those issues in their motion.

Retaliation claims

The court dismissed Cruz’s retaliation claims. Any retaliation claims based on events before the applicable limitations periods were untimely. Cruz’s timely protected activity included filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge in August 2020, but she did not allege a change in the defendants’ conduct after that filing that would connect the filing to the failure to offer her a position.

The court also held that Cruz’s requests not to be assigned to a facility where the colleague who had allegedly harassed her worked were not protected activity under Title VII. She did not allege that HHC was trying to assign her to such a facility or that, in making those requests, she was opposing an employment practice she reasonably believed was unlawful.

Age-discrimination claims

The court dismissed Cruz’s age-discrimination claims under federal, state, and city law. She alleged that HHC did not hire her for four positions because of her age, but she did not provide facts suggesting age-based intent. For example, she did not identify younger, less-qualified candidates who were hired or provide other facts supporting an inference of age discrimination. The court found her allegations conclusory.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part. Cruz’s disability-discrimination claims for the period following December 2018 survive. All other claims were dismissed.