Coleman v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Background

Mark F. Coleman represented himself and brought employment-discrimination claims against the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) and three DOHMH employees: Athea Long, La'Draya Macon, and June Bridgemohan. He alleged discrimination based on disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also asserted a race-discrimination claim under Title VII.

Coleman alleged that he had spinal stenosis, spinal derangement, and arthritis. His job as a health navigator involved extended walking and standing. After experiencing pain, he requested accommodations, including a position involving little or no walking. After returning from medical leave in June 2020, he worked from home and performed telephone and writing tasks. He later returned to street outreach work, which required long-distance walking, and requested reassignment to either an agency driving position or a temporary COVID-19 testing-laboratory position. The requests were denied. He filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on July 21, 2020 and later amended it to include retaliation.

Statute of limitations

The court held that Coleman’s federal claims concerning events before September 25, 2019 were time-barred. He filed his EEOC charge on July 21, 2020, and the applicable filing period was 300 days. The court rejected Coleman’s request for additional time because he had not shown that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented an earlier filing. The court therefore considered his federal claims concerning events after June 1, 2020, when he returned to work.

Failure to accommodate

The court held that Coleman sufficiently stated failure-to-accommodate claims. The defendants did not dispute, for purposes of the motion, that Coleman had a disability or that DOHMH knew about it. Coleman alleged that he could perform essential aspects of his job while working from home, as he had done after returning from medical leave, and that other employees were permitted to work remotely. He also alleged that two vacant positions—the driver position and the COVID-19 Quickie Lab position—could have accommodated his disability through reassignment.

The court allowed Coleman’s failure-to-accommodate claims to proceed against DOHMH. The conclusion also states that he may proceed with failure-to-accommodate claims against the individual defendants under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.

Discrimination claims

The court dismissed Coleman’s disparate-treatment disability-discrimination claims. It found that he had not sufficiently alleged that DOHMH took an adverse employment action because of his disability. He did not identify a similarly situated employee without a disability who was treated more favorably, discriminatory comments, or other facts plausibly connecting the challenged decisions to his disability. The court also held that he had not met the less demanding standard for a disability-discrimination claim under the NYCHRL.

Coleman stated in his opposition that he was releasing his race-discrimination claims. The court therefore granted dismissal of that claim. The individual defendants’ ADA and Title VII claims were also treated as abandoned because Coleman did not respond to the argument that individuals could not be held liable under those statutes.

Retaliation claims

The court allowed Coleman’s retaliation claims to proceed. The defendants did not dispute that filing an EEOC charge was protected activity. Coleman alleged that he was required to perform street outreach and was denied remote work and the two temporary positions because he filed the EEOC charge. The court found those allegations sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ May 10, 2021 motion to dismiss in part. Coleman may proceed with all failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims against DOHMH, and with those claims against the individual defendants under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. The conclusion states that all other claims, including the Title VII claims, are dismissed.

The opinion’s conclusion contains apparent typographical or abbreviation inconsistencies, including references to “DCHMH,” “NYHRL,” and “NYCRL”; this summary uses the statute and agency names identified elsewhere in the opinion.