Abadi v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

Aaron Abadi, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NYU Langone Health System and several employees. He alleged disability discrimination and related violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, among other claims. The proposed amended complaint concerned multiple incidents in 2021 and 2022 involving NYU Langone’s policy requiring masks inside its facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Abadi alleged that employees and security personnel denied or delayed access to medical care when he said that a diagnosed sensory processing disorder made wearing a mask extremely uncomfortable.

Abadi moved for permission to add 17 defendants and include additional factual allegations. The court treated the motion as properly before it after Abadi filed the proposed amended complaint. Under the federal amendment rules, courts generally allow amendments unless there is a good reason not to, including that the proposed amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile when the proposed complaint would not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied permission to add eight proposed defendants because the proposed complaint named them but made no factual allegations about them: Regina Grinblat, Nina Gonzalez, Johanna Pizarro, Jimmy Estevez, Maria Moschetta, Christine Cha, Michelle Miranda, and Harvard Protection Services, LLC.

The court also found that the proposed claims against the remaining proposed individual defendants would be futile. For the Americans with Disabilities Act claims, the court explained that individual liability generally requires the person to own, lease, or operate the public accommodation. The proposed complaint did not plausibly allege that the individual employees or security personnel operated NYU Langone or made its masking policy. The allegations instead generally showed that they followed or communicated an existing policy. The court also found that the proposed retaliation claim did not identify which defendants allegedly contacted or harassed Abadi’s doctors.

For the New York State and New York City discrimination claims, the court recognized that those laws can allow claims against an employee or agent who is personally involved in discriminatory conduct. But the proposed complaint did not plausibly show that the proposed defendants personally decided to deny Abadi a reasonable accommodation, rather than merely enforcing NYU Langone’s policy. The court said the allegations regarding Fran Drummond, Megan Hender, Seila Radoncic, and Jessica Pfeffer did not establish that they had authority to grant an exception to the policy.

The court further concluded that the proposed conspiracy claims under federal law lacked allegations showing an agreement or a class-based discriminatory motive. Because the conspiracy claim failed, the related claim for failing to prevent the conspiracy also could not proceed. The proposed Patients’ Bill of Rights claims did not plausibly establish liability for the proposed individual defendants. The court also found that other proposed claims either appeared directed only at NYU Langone or existing medical providers, or failed to identify the allegedly responsible person or the information involved, as with the proposed health-information claim.

Disposition

The motion to file an amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The court allowed Abadi to file an amended complaint containing the new factual allegations, but he had to omit the 17 proposed defendants from both the caption and the section identifying the defendants. The amended complaint had to be filed within seven days of the decision. The court did not resolve the defendants’ other arguments concerning possible defects in the amended complaint, including their argument that requested injunctive relief was moot.

Judge

The opinion was issued and signed by Gabriel W. Gorenstein, United States Magistrate Judge.