In Draghi v. New York City Department of Education, No. 24-CV-2920 (EK)(MMH), 2026 WL 73970 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of hostile work environment asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
From the decision:
To allege a hostile work environment, “a plaintiff must show that (i) the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] work environment, and (ii) the harassment was based on [his] protected group.” Williams v. Geiger, 447 F. Supp. 3d 68, 80-81 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (Cave, M.J).
Draghi has not alleged severe or pervasive harassment. He mainly alleges that, over four years, Parella and other supervisors criticized him, wrongly disciplined him, or paired him with teachers who made him anxious. But “the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, do not rise to a level constituting a hostile work environment.” Montanez v. McDean LLC, 770 F. App’x 592, 594 (2d Cir. 2019). And courts in this circuit have held that a complaint that relies primarily on allegations of meritless discipline (like Draghi’s) does not adequately allege a hostile work environment. See, e.g., Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 321 (allegations of “harsh tones” and “wrongful[ ] reprimand[s]” insufficient for hostile work environment claim); Trachtenberg v. Dep’t of Educ. of City of N.Y., 937 F. Supp. 2d 460, 472-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“negative performance evaluations and letters … that contained scurrilous charges” did not constitute severe or pervasive harassment).
Since plaintiff did not seek leave to amend his complaint, the court dismissed his federal claims with prejudice. The court did, however, decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claims, which it dismissed without prejudice to refiling those claims in state court.