Abadi v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

Aaron Abadi, a pro se plaintiff, sued NYU Langone Health System and several employees, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, among other claims. He filed a second motion for leave to amend his complaint, principally seeking to add seven defendants: Fran Drummond, Megan Hender, Jace Casanovas, Nina Gonzalez, Jimmy Estevez, Harvard Protection Services, LLC, and Alissa Celli. Harvard Protection was identified as NYU Langone’s security contractor, and Estevez as a security guard employed by Harvard Protection.

The court had previously denied Abadi’s request to add these proposed defendants because the allegations did not state viable claims against them. In the new proposed complaint, Abadi added factual allegations and legal arguments. The proposed claims included claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, disability-discrimination and cooperative-dialogue claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, disability-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, and other claims.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts generally should freely allow amendments when justice requires. A court may deny amendment for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile when it would not cure earlier defects or would fail to state a claim. When a proposed amendment adds parties, Rule 21 also applies, but the court stated that the required showing is the same as under Rule 15.

Because Abadi was representing himself, the court construed his proposed pleading liberally. It nevertheless required factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

Proposed defendants

The court denied the motion as to Jace Casanovas, Nina Gonzalez, and Alissa Celli. Abadi did not provide new substantive facts sufficient to support an inference that these individuals had authority to do more than implement NYU Langone’s masking policy. The court found that describing Casanovas as a director and person in charge, and Gonzalez as an operations manager in charge of a floor, did not cure the prior pleading deficiencies. The court found no new substantive allegations concerning Celli.

The court also denied the motion as to Jimmy Estevez and Harvard Protection Services. Abadi alleged that Estevez filed a report with his employer and that Estevez and Harvard Protection conspired with NYU staff to discriminate against him. The court found these allegations conclusory and insufficient to support a claim under sections 1985 or 1986. In particular, they did not provide a factual basis for an agreement among the alleged conspirators or show the required discriminatory animus. The court also stated that Harvard Protection could not face vicarious liability without adequately alleged underlying conduct by Estevez.

The court granted the motion as to Fran Drummond. Abadi cited an NYU Langone interrogatory response stating that Drummond was principally involved in overseeing the disability policy and procedures at the relevant locations. The court concluded that this created a reasonable inference that Drummond personally had authority to grant an accommodation allowing Abadi to obtain medical services without a mask.

The court denied the motion as to Megan Hender. Abadi alleged that Hender was part of “senior leadership,” helped prepare for his visit, and was “in charge of the accommodations.” The court found that these allegations did not show that Hender made the decision to require a rapid test or otherwise specify her authority. The court also found that the cited email excerpt merely showed that Hender provided a status update and did not establish her role.

Other arguments

The defendants argued that the proposed complaint was futile because the defendants had provided a reasonable accommodation and because the dispute was moot. The court declined to resolve those arguments on the amendment motion because they relied on facts not alleged in the proposed complaint. The court also stated that claims already pleaded against existing defendants were not the subject of this motion and that defendants could seek dismissal through an appropriate later motion.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted in part and denied in part Abadi’s motion to amend. Abadi could file an amended complaint only if it omitted all proposed defendants other than Fran Drummond and limited any new listing of defendants for specific claims to adding Drummond to the New York State and New York City human-rights-law claims identified as Counts 8, 9, and 10. The court required the amended complaint to be filed within seven days of the decision.