In Troche v. New York City Transit Authority, No. 156731/2024, 2025 WL 1542341 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County May 29, 2025), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
In sum, plaintiff alleged that the defendant committed discrimination by refusing to reinstate him to his former position as a Train Conductor following a medical leave.
The court summarized and applied the law as follows:
To state a claim for disability discrimination under the NYSHRL, the plaintiff must allege that: (1) he suffers from a disability within the meaning of the statute; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Cuccia v. Martinez & Ritorto, PC, 877 N.Y.S.2d 333, 335 (1st Dept. 2009); Pimentel v. Citibank, N.A., 29 A.D.3d 141, 145 (1st Dept. 2006).
As to the first element, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from biventricular heart failure and had an ICD implanted. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 12. While such a condition may, under certain circumstances, qualify as a disability, the NYSHRL defines disability in relevant part as a medical condition that “prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function or is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Executive Law § 292(21). Plaintiff must show that the impairment substantially limits his ability to perform a major life activity or his job. See Miller v. Ravitch, 120 A.D.2d 799, 800 (2d Dept. 1986). Here, Plaintiff alleges he can operate the doors and brakes of a train, but fails to plead that he can perform the full range of essential duties required of a conductor, as established by the Notice of Examination and Rules and Regulations. Because essential job functions include traversing subway tracks and stepping over the live third rail–tasks which may pose risks given the presence of a defibrillator–Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that he is capable of performing the essential duties of his position. Jones v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 838 F. App’x 642, 645–46 (2d Cir. 2021).
The second and third elements under the NYSHRL–adverse employment action due to disability–are also inadequately plead. The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff requested a specific reasonable accommodation, nor that Defendant refused such a request. In Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824, 835 (2014), the Court of Appeals held that under the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must identify a proposed accommodation and plead that the employer failed to engage in a good faith interactive process to assess its feasibility. Absent such allegations, Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim under the NYSHRL. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the NYSHRL, and dismissal under CPLR § 3211(a)(7) is warranted.
The analysis under the NYCHRL is not materially distinguishable. While the NYCHRL is interpreted more liberally and independently from the NYSHRL, and shifts the burden to the employer to show that no reasonable accommodation existed or that providing one would impose an undue hardship once an adverse employment action and employer knowledge of disability are established, Plaintiff must still allege that he had a known disability requiring accommodation. Jacobsen, 22 N.Y.3d at 835–36; Goolsby v. City of N.Y., 207 A.D.3d 874, 878 (1st Dept. 2022); Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62, 66 (1st Dept. 2009).
Here, Plaintiff has not adequately plead a known disability requiring accommodation under the NYCHRL. He alleges that he was cleared to work without restriction and does not assert that he proposed or needed a specific accommodation. Absent such an allegation, Defendant was under no obligation to propose or consider accommodations. Pimentel, 29 A.D.3d at 145. The failure to allege a known disability and an actual need for accommodation is fatal even under the broader protections of the NYCHRL.
Accordingly, the court held, dismissal was warranted.