In Rivas v. Intern. Academy of Hope, No. 156236/2021, 2024 WL 4003749 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Aug. 30, 2024), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged disability discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
After summarizing the black-letter law, the court applied it to the facts as follows:
[P]laintiff describes in his detailed summons and complaint the factors constituting the discrimination he experienced and the roles the various defendants played. Plaintiff sufficiently pleads facts to support his claim that defendants had a discriminatory animus towards him because of his disability.
Plaintiff’s discrimination claims against all defendants may proceed, and defendants’ motion to dismiss these causes of action is denied. The complaint pleads sufficient facts to support plaintiff’s cause of action for discrimination against iHOPE, Juhasz and the other named defendants. Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for discrimination in that: (1) as a disabled person, diagnosed with severe anxiety, depression and bi-polar disorder, he is a member of a protected class; (2) he is qualified to hold the position, as he has held supervisory positions such as paraprofessional manager, operations manager and logistics manager prior during his years at iHOPE; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, as his supervisor violated his privacy rights in revealing Plaintiff’s protected mental health issues to colleagues and others in the workplace, stripped or severely diminished his duties, instructing him not to return to the iHOPE campus but to work offsite at the administrative offices, prevented him from entering iHOPE’s campus, and allegedly pressured him to resign or be fired; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred after plaintiff’s supervisor Juhasz learned of the plaintiff’s mental health episode which resulted in him being rushed to the hospital and remaining in a psychiatric hospital for a significant period of time while he was recovering and being treated by medical professionals. Thus, plaintiff has shown that the adverse actions occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
The court thus concluded that “[a]s plaintiff has established a prima facie case for discrimination, Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to these causes of action is denied.”