Schwartz v. Middletown City School District

Background

Gregory R. Schwartz sued Middletown City School District and its former superintendent, Richard DelMoro. Schwartz proceeded without a lawyer. He alleged disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).

Schwartz alleged that he had a heart-related disability and had worked as a tenured social studies teacher. After the District required teachers to return to in-person work during the 2020–21 school year, Schwartz requested a remote-work accommodation and provided a doctor’s note. The District allegedly denied the request, told him to report to work or take unpaid leave, and refused to let him use accrued sick or leave time to offset the unpaid leave. Schwartz proposed other remote assignments, including teaching students learning remotely and writing curricula. He alleged that teachers with the same license held similar special-assignment positions.

The District later offered Schwartz remote teaching through the end of the spring 2021 semester, but he rejected that offer because he alleged it would reduce his average yearly earnings and pension benefits. He later took unpaid leave for the 2021–22 school year and resigned in September 2022. After filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he received a right-to-sue letter and filed this action.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. On such a motion, the court generally assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff. Because Schwartz was proceeding without a lawyer, the court interpreted his allegations liberally.

ADA Claims Against DelMoro

The court dismissed Schwartz’s ADA claims against DelMoro. Schwartz conceded, and the court held, that individuals cannot be held personally liable under the ADA, whether sued in an individual or official capacity.

ADA and NYSHRL Failure-to-Accommodate Claims

The court held that Schwartz adequately pleaded failure-to-accommodate claims against the District. At the pleading stage, he sufficiently alleged that he was disabled, qualified to perform his teaching duties with an accommodation, and proposed accommodations that could have allowed him to perform teaching functions remotely. His allegations that he had taught remotely during the prior school year, that similar special-assignment positions existed, and that the District later offered him remote work supported his claim.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that in-person supervision was necessarily an essential function of Schwartz’s job. Whether a particular function is essential is fact-specific and ordinarily requires evidence beyond the pleadings. The court also declined to decide at this stage whether unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law.

The defendants also argued that Schwartz’s rejection of the January 2021 remote-work offer barred his claim. The court disagreed. It found that the offer’s reasonableness could not be determined from the pleadings, including because Schwartz alleged that accepting it would reduce his pension benefits. The court also stated that, even if the offer were reasonable, rejecting a later offer would not necessarily eliminate claims based on the District’s earlier refusals to provide accommodations.

Because NYSHRL failure-to-accommodate claims are analyzed under the same standards as ADA claims, the court allowed those claims to proceed as well. The court further concluded that Schwartz adequately alleged that the District had notice of his disability and accommodation requests.

ADA and NYSHRL Discrimination Claims

Schwartz separately alleged that the defendants discriminated against him by placing him on unpaid leave without allowing him to use accrued benefits. Although the defendants did not specifically address this claim in their motion papers, the court considered it because it was required to read the pro se complaint to raise its strongest possible claims.

The court found the discrimination claim plausible, though thin. It concluded that denying work from home, imposing unpaid leave, or both could constitute an adverse employment action in the circumstances alleged. Schwartz also alleged facts supporting a minimal inference of discriminatory motive, including that other teachers with his qualifications were allowed to work in special assignments while his requests were denied. The court therefore did not dismiss this claim as frivolous.

Timeliness of the NYSHRL Claims

The defendants argued that Schwartz’s NYSHRL claims were untimely under the one-year limitations period applicable to claims against school districts. Schwartz argued that the period was paused while his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceeding was pending.

The court declined to dismiss the NYSHRL claims as untimely. It held that the filing and pendency of the EEOC proceeding tolled, or paused, the limitations period. The court acknowledged a split among federal courts but concluded that New York statutes requiring a stay of related state-law discrimination claims during administrative proceedings, together with New York’s general tolling statute, supported tolling here.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court dismissed Schwartz’s ADA claims against DelMoro, while all of his other claims survived. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and scheduled a status conference for April 8, 2024.