Della Mura v. Thomas

Background

Anthony Della Mura brought this action against Richard Thomas, Lawrence Porcari, Benjamin Marable, the City of Mount Vernon, and the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply. The court had previously dismissed all claims against the individual defendants. Della Mura then voluntarily dismissed his civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim against the City and the Board. The remaining claims against the City and the Board were: failure to provide a reasonable disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, disability discrimination under that statute, and retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights through a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The City and the Board moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). This type of motion uses the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support a legal claim.

Disability-accommodation claim

Della Mura alleged that, after surgery amputating his left leg below the knee, he returned to work and was moved to a small office outside the Board’s main offices. He alleged that shelves under his desk prevented him from stretching his legs, caused substantial pain, and worsened his health. He also alleged that the defendants ignored his requests to move him back to the Board’s office and remove the shelves.

The defendants did not dispute at this stage that Della Mura had a disability, that they were covered employers, or that they knew about his disability. They argued that he had not adequately alleged that the defendants failed to provide an accommodation that would allow him to perform his job’s essential functions.

The court rejected that argument. Whether an accommodation is reasonable is a fact-specific question generally unsuitable for resolution on a pleadings motion. The court held that Della Mura plausibly alleged that the office arrangement prevented him from performing his job because it caused him substantial pain, and that the requested changes could have reduced that pain and helped him perform his work. The court therefore denied the motion as to the second cause of action, the disability-accommodation claim.

Disability-discrimination claim

Della Mura did not oppose the defendants’ motion concerning his separate ADA disability-discrimination claim. The court treated that claim as abandoned and dismissed the third cause of action against the City and the Board.

First Amendment retaliation claim

Della Mura also did not oppose the motion concerning his claim that the defendants retaliated against him for exercising First Amendment rights. The court therefore dismissed the fourth cause of action against the City and the Board.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the City Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Della Mura’s disability-accommodation claim was the only claim remaining against those defendants. The City Defendants’ counterclaim against Della Mura also remained intact. The court scheduled a status conference and directed the parties to submit a proposed schedule for the remaining fact depositions.