In Burgess v. The New School University et al, 23-cv-4944 (JGK), 2024 WL 4149240 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate-disability claim asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
From the decision:
Burgess next alleges that the defendants violated the ADA by failing to accommodate Burgess’s requests for a new classroom and Burgess’s requests for no new teaching assignments. To state a claim under the ADA based on a failure-to-accommodate theory, the plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff “is a person with a disability” as defined in the ADA; (2) “an employer covered by the statute had notice of [the] disability”; (3) “with reasonable accommodations, [the] plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job at issue”; and (4) the covered employer “refused to make such accommodations.” Piligian, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 17; Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181, 184 (2d Cir. 2006).
TNS does not dispute that Burgess has a disability as defined in the ADA and that TNS was on notice of the disability. The allegations in the complaint indicate that Burgess’s doctor informed TNS at various times that Burgess had claustrophobia anxiety disorder, a panic disorder, and PTSD, and requested appropriate classrooms and “no new courses.” SAC ¶¶ 45–52; see also id. at ¶ 45. Burgess alleges that TNS denied Burgess’s request to reconsider Burgess’s ADA accommodation request that Burgess be assigned to teach no “new courses.” SAC ¶¶ 57, 58. As a result, Burgess alleges that Burgess’s “disability worsened.” Id. ¶ 65. Burgess further alleges that Burgess provided an updated assessment of Burgess’s disability to the defendants, and a psychologist’s recommendation that Burgess teach “no new courses.” Id. ¶ 85. The psychologist stated that “[t]he accommodation of no new courses would have allowed [Burgess] to continue teaching.” Id. During this period, TNS declined to accommodate Burgess’s request that no new courses be assigned, see id. ¶¶ 54, 59, and declined to assign Burgess a suitable classroom, see id. ¶¶ 36, 37.
The court concluded that based on these allegations, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the defendant school failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Burgess’s disabilities, noting that plaintiff provided a letter from a psychologist that stated that “[t]he accommodation of no new courses would have allowed [Burgess] to continue teaching[,]” and the parties dispute whether Burgess could “perform the essential functions of the job at issue” if the defendants provided Burgess with the requested accommodation. Notably, “the nature of a job’s essential functions is a fact-bound question ill-suited for resolution on a motion to dismiss.”