In Epifani v. State of New Mexico et al, 2026 WL 1261122 (D.N.M. May 8, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a disability-based hostile work environment claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s complaint includes certain factual allegations that arguably pertain to her ADA hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff lists her disability or perceived disability as osteoarthritis (“OA”), rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”), and diabetes. She provided her employer with doctor’s notes in September and October 2022 stating that her OA and RA affected her ability to walk distances, so she should not be on the court run schedule, and that her diabetes can cause sudden mood swings and change in behavior. Her doctor’s letter also notified her employer that she should be allowed more frequent breaks to check her blood glucose levels. Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendant Tapia began “chronically abusing” her verbally by saying in front of other employees in the office that she was always forgetting things because she had dementia. He also called her “worthless” on numerous other occasions. On a few occasions when she approached him during work hours about her work, Defendant Tapia told her to get her thumb out of her ass. In the complaint, Plaintiff further asserts that, because of her medical conditions, her hands would shake at times, and when that occurred around Defendant Tapia, he made fun of her for it and called the attention of others to it as well. According to Plaintiff, she was admitted to the emergency room on September 14, 2022, because of her blood sugar and blood pressure, yet she was given a formal reprimand and disciplinary action for leaving without informing her supervisor. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Carson and Padilla adjusted her duties, failed to accommodate her medical needs, attributed errors to her that were beyond her control, and shortly thereafter demoted her for poor work performance. Finally, she alleges that on May 23, 2024, Defendant Padilla changed her duties to require her to do the mail run, despite her doctor’s note recommending that she not do the court run and that Plaintiff said her doctor did not want her driving. Defendants Fajardo, Padilla, Howden, and Martinez nonetheless persisted in requiring her to conduct the mail run.
On a motion to dismiss, all reasonable inferences must be construed in favor of Plaintiff. Based on the totality of the allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for ADA hostile work environment based on her disability. In contrast to her national origin claim, Plaintiff has alleged more than isolated comments, but rather repeated and consistent verbal harassment related to her health and disability and requiring her to perform tasks that she alleges exceeded her medical restrictions. The Court will therefore deny the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA hostile work environment claim. Cf. Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 173-74, 179 (4th Cir. 2001) (concluding plaintiff presented evidence of objectively severe and pervasive workplace harassment based on evidence that employer refused to accommodate employee’s disability, employer forced him to perform tasks beyond his medical restrictions, and employees engaged in constant verbal harassment of him and ostracized disabled workers).
(Cleaned up.)
The court found that plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that she suffered harassment based on her national origin (Italian heritage).