In Veras v. City of New York, No. 159560/2023, 2024 WL 3522161 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County July 23, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of disability discrimination asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
In sum, plaintiff – an NYPD employee – alleges that after suffering an on-the-job injury (being dragged while exiting a police vehicle), she “was subjected to threatening and demeaning comments, including being told that she should resign, that she would be suspended, that she would be terminated, that she should ‘not get into any freaky sex positions,’ that her inability to heal was caused by her lack of motivation, and that she was using her accident to cover up a past injury” during ensuing medical appointments.
In ruling on defendant’s motion, after summarizing the black-letter law, the court applied it to the facts as follows:
Plaintiff met her burden with respect to the first three elements by pleading that she was perceived by her employer to be disabled, was qualified to hold her position with the NYPD, and was denied leave and subjected to demeaning comments, including being labeled a “problem child,” and threats of suspension and termination. Plaintiff’s allegations that she was surveyed out, told to resign, and denied overtime and promotional opportunities due to her perceived disability are sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination[]. The City’s argument that Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for unlawful discrimination because she was treated similarly to others on restricted duty is without merit.2 A policy and practice that disadvantages disabled employees equally is unlawful discrimination under the NYCHRL (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[17]; and see NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability, April 2019, at 21 and 26 [“any policy that negatively singles out individuals with disabilities is unlawful disparate treatment under the NYCHRL unless the covered entity can demonstrate a legitimate non-discriminatory justification for the distinction” and “under a disparate impact theory of discrimination, a facially neutral policy or practice may be found to be unlawful discrimination even without evidence of the covered entity’s subjective intent to discriminate”]).
[Citations omitted.]
It further denied defendant’s motion as to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, noting that her “allegations that she was denied overtime and promotional opportunities due to her perceived disability are adequate to plead that she was treated differently or less well than non-disabled employees, and allegations that she was repeatedly told she would be forced to retire or be ‘surveyed’ off the job have been found by several courts to sufficiently allege facts that a plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment.”