NYPD Sergeant’s Disability Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment Claims Sufficiently Alleged

In Henriquez v. City of New York, No. 160044/23, 2026 WL 739752 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 17, 2026), the court reversed a lower court decision, and held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims of disability discrimination and hostile work environment.

From the decision:

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][7] ), we must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Vig v. New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 A.D.3d 140, 144–145, 885 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept 2009] ). A discrimination case is “reviewed under notice pleading standards,” meaning plaintiff is not required to plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case, but rather, “need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds” (id. at 145, 885 N.Y.S.2d 74).

Plaintiff, a former New York City Police Department sergeant, sufficiently pleaded that she suffered a disability when she was injured in the line of duty, that she was capable of performing her duties after her injury with a reasonable accommodation (see Phillips v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 170, 181–182, 884 N.Y.S.2d 369 [1st Dept 2009] ), and that defendants subjected her to adverse treatment in close temporal proximity to her seeking medical treatment. Indeed, plaintiff pleaded that for five years after her injury she successfully worked for defendants under a reasonable accommodation, and that defendants removed plaintiff’s accommodation by forcing her to retire without engaging in a collaborative dialogue (see id.).

Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim was also sufficiently pleaded and should not have been dismissed. The alleged comments and remarks to plaintiff at the time she made a disability-related request were more than “petty slights and trivial inconveniences”

The court further remanded for the lower court to determine, on the merits, plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Share This: