“Barebones” ADA Disability Discrimination Complaint

A recent decision, Rodriguez v. Gikher, 2019 WL 2433596, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019), provides an outline of the elements of a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as what must be alleged to properly plead such a claim.

The court explains:

The ADA prohibits discrimination against a ‘qualified individual on the basis of disability’ in the ‘terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.’ ” Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). A person is disabled under the ADA if the person has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).

This antidiscrimination provision prohibits employers from mistreating an individual because of the individual’s protected characteristics, Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2007), or retaliating against an employee who has opposed any practice made unlawful by those statutes, see Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t, 555 U.S. 271, 276 (2009) (holding that conduct is protected when it “confront[s],” “resist[s],” or “withstand[s]” unlawful actions). Mistreatment at work that occurs for a reason other than an employee’s protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct is not actionable under these federal antidiscrimination statutes. See Chukwuka v. City of New York, 513 F. App’x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2001)).

At the pleading stage in an employment discrimination action, “a plaintiff must allege that the employer took adverse action against her at least in part for a discriminatory reason.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 87 (2d Cir. 2015). A plaintiff “may do so by alleging facts that directly show discrimination or facts that indirectly show discrimination by giving rise to a plausible inference of discrimination.

Applying the law and pleading standards, the court concludes that plaintiff, in her “barebones” complaint, failed to state a disability discrimination claim, “because she does not state any facts describing the nature of her disability, what occurred during her employment at PWG, what type of accommodation she requested, the reasons given, if any, for her termination, or why she believes the termination was based on her disabilities.”

It did, however, give plaintiff the opportunity (“leave”) to amend her complaint to assert facts suggesting that defendant violated the ADA.

Share This: