In Hall v. New York City Department of Education, 23-cv-10385 (JGK), 2024 WL 4979288 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s “associational discrimination” claim asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
From the decision:
The plaintiff also claims that the defendant discriminated against her based on her association with her disabled daughter. FAC ¶¶ 130–34. Title I of the ADA prohibits “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4).
To state a claim for associational discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege:
1) that she was qualified for the job at the time of an adverse employment action; 2) that she was subjected to adverse employment action; 3) that she was known at the time to have a relative or associate with a disability; and 4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances raising a reasonable inference that the disability of the relative or associate was a determining factor in the employer’s decision.
One scenario that may support an inference that the adverse employment decision was motivated by associational discrimination is distraction: the employer’s fear that the employee will be inattentive at work due to the disability of the disabled person.” Id. at 468. Claims alleging associational discrimination under the ADA are also governed by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Id.
The parties dispute only the fourth element of the plaintiff’s associational-discrimination claim. Thus, to prevail on this motion, the plaintiff “must plausibly allege ‘that the plaintiff … has at least minimal support for the proposition that the employer was motivated by discriminatory intent.
The FAC easily “satisfies the fourth element of an associational discrimination claim: an inference that the disability of the plaintiff’s relative or associate was a determining factor in the employer’s adverse action.” See id. at 470. The DOE retracted the plaintiff’s job offer two days after she met with the assistant principal at the school to advocate for her disabled daughter. See FAC ¶¶ 60–69. And during the September 15, 2022 call, Weathers told the plaintiff that “having a daughter at the school you work at wouldn’t be fair.” Id. ¶ 68. At this stage, “[t]hese allegations provide all that is needed.”
[Internal quotation marks and citations omitted]
Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff adequately states an associational discrimination claim pursuant to Title I of the ADA.