Evans v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Stephen Evans, who represented himself, sued the New York City Department of Education under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that the Department’s COVID policy discriminated against him based on disability and that the Department retaliated against him after he objected to the policy and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Department’s policy required employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they received a medical or religious exemption. Employees who declined vaccination could take unpaid leave or accept severance. Evans objected to the policy, refused to wear a mask, and was removed from the school building. The Department later placed him on unpaid leave and terminated him for failing to comply with the policy.

The Department moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally plausible claim.

COVID-Policy Challenge

The court ruled that Evans’s challenge to the validity of the COVID policy was moot, meaning that the court could no longer provide meaningful relief on that issue. The citywide vaccine mandate had been lifted on February 10, 2023. The court found no evidence that the Department or City was likely to reinstate the mandate, and it considered the possibility of a future mandate speculative. The court therefore dismissed Evans’s claim challenging the COVID policy for mootness.

Timeliness of the ADA Claims

The court ruled that Evans’s ADA claims were untimely. An ADA plaintiff generally must file suit within 90 days after receiving an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter. Evans alleged that he received his letter on June 7, 2022. The court treated September 13, 2022—the date the Pro Se Office received his complaint—as the filing date, making the filing 98 days after receipt of the letter. The court also stated that the complaint would have been untimely even using Evans’s asserted mailing date of September 6, 2022, which was 91 days after receipt of the letter.

ADA Discrimination Claim

The court nevertheless addressed additional grounds supporting dismissal. To state an ADA discrimination claim, Evans had to plausibly allege that he was disabled within the meaning of the statute. He argued that the Department regarded him as disabled because the COVID policy required vaccination, testing, masking, and other safety measures. The court concluded that the policy did not plausibly show that the Department regarded Evans as having a disability; the policy applied to employees generally and did not establish that the Department viewed him as presently having a disabling condition.

Evans also argued that the Department created a record of disability by classifying him as unvaccinated and requiring mitigation measures. The court rejected that theory because tracking vaccination status and requiring safety measures did not show that the Department recorded an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity. The court also noted Evans’s allegation that he was willing and able to perform his job.

ADA Retaliation Claim

The court also concluded that Evans had not plausibly alleged ADA retaliation. It treated his written complaint, his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge, and the filing of this lawsuit as protected activity. But it ruled that his failure to comply with testing and masking requirements was not protected activity.

The court found that the timing of Evans’s complaints and termination did not by itself establish retaliation because the policy set a compliance deadline and discipline naturally followed close in time. Evans identified no additional facts showing retaliatory intent or disparate treatment. The court concluded that his allegations indicated he was disciplined for refusing to comply with the policy, rather than because he engaged in protected activity.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the Department of Education’s motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.