Ingram v. Banks

Background

Lola Ingram sued Commissioner Steven Banks and Felicia Ellis under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The opinion identifies Banks as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration, Department of Social Services, and Ellis as a supervisor at that agency. Ingram alleged discrimination during her employment because of her post-traumatic stress disorder and veteran status.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is granted when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

ADA Claims

The court held that the ADA does not provide for individual liability. Because Ingram named only individual defendants, her ADA claims against Banks and Ellis could not proceed as pleaded, and the court dismissed those claims.

Ingram argued that judicial estoppel should prevent the defendants from making this argument. Judicial estoppel is a rule that can bar a party from taking a position inconsistent with an earlier position when the court adopted the earlier position. The court rejected the argument because, although the defendants’ answer referred to a city agency and indicated that the Corporation Counsel represented entities and individuals, the court had not adopted the position that a city agency was a defendant.

The defendants sought dismissal with prejudice. The court instead granted Ingram leave to amend because her potentially meritorious ADA claims should not fail solely because she did not name the proper defendant, and because references to non-individual defendants in the answer contributed to that error. The court stated that, if Ingram pursued the ADA claims, she should name the City of New York or another appropriate suable entity. The court did not decide whether claims against the City in an amended complaint would be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations because the parties had not briefed whether the amended claims could relate back to the original complaint.

NYCHRL Claims and Disposition

The court noted that federal claims dismissed before trial are generally accompanied by dismissal of related nonfederal claims. But the parties had not briefed whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state or city-law claims. Following the requirement that the parties receive notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court directed them to brief whether it should retain the NYCHRL claims. The opinion did not dismiss those claims at that stage.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice to Ingram’s ability to file an amended complaint adding one or more non-individual defendants. Ingram was directed to notify the court by July 25, 2022, whether she intended to file an amended complaint. The case was stayed pending that submission, and the clerk was directed to close docket entry 43.