Rhoda v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.

Background

James W. Rhoda, Jr., a former Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. employee, sued Central Hudson and individual defendants Sharon McGinnis, Jill Sammon, Erica Tyler, Tera Stoner, Paul Haerin, David Dittmann, and ten unidentified defendants. He alleged employment discrimination based on disabilities, including sleep apnea, cognitive impairment, tendinitis and bursitis, heart disease, hypertension, and other conditions.

Rhoda alleged that he was hired as a full-time Senior Telecommunications Systems Designer in 2016. He received generally positive evaluations and pay increases in several years, but also received criticism and areas for improvement. In February 2021, Central Hudson placed him on a performance improvement plan. Rhoda said he needed additional time to complete tasks, but the defendants did not agree to provide it. He also sought a transfer to another position. Central Hudson terminated him on August 2, 2021, citing his performance and consistency over the previous several years.

Rhoda asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York’s aiding-and-abetting law, and several other state-law theories. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Court’s reasoning

Claims against individual defendants

The court held that individuals cannot be held personally liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act in the circumstances presented. It therefore dismissed the first through thirteenth causes of action against the individual defendants.

Rehabilitation Act claims

The court held that Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act does not provide a private right to sue. It also held that Rhoda did not allege that Central Hudson received federal financial assistance, a requirement for his Section 504 claims. The court dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claims in causes of action six through thirteen.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Central Hudson

The court dismissed Rhoda’s discriminatory-compensation claim as untimely. The court reasoned that the alleged failure to provide a performance-based raise occurred outside the 300-day period for filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Rhoda had a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It concluded, however, that his accommodation claims were not adequately pleaded. Rhoda alleged that Central Hudson knew about his sleep apnea and tendinitis or bursitis after he discussed those conditions while requesting a standing desk. But the court found that the standing desk was not connected to the memory problems discussed in his performance reviews, and Rhoda had alleged that he could perform his essential job functions without an accommodation.

The court also dismissed Rhoda’s claim that Central Hudson used discriminatory qualification standards or selection criteria to prevent his transfer. Rhoda did not identify the specific qualification standards he challenged or adequately allege a connection between those standards, his disabilities, and the termination or failure to transfer him.

The discriminatory-discharge claim also failed because Rhoda repeatedly alleged that he could perform the essential functions of his job without a reasonable accommodation. The court stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require an accommodation that is not needed to perform those functions.

State-law claims

After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rhoda’s remaining state-law claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. As to the individual defendants, the first through thirteenth causes of action were dismissed with prejudice. The Section 503 Rehabilitation Act claims in causes of action six, eight, ten, and twelve were dismissed with prejudice. As to Central Hudson, the first through fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth through twenty-second causes of action were dismissed without prejudice. The court granted Rhoda leave to file another amended complaint by April 8, 2024.