In Feliciano v. City of New York, No. 154804/2024, 2026 WL 1813759 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 10, 2026), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of disability discrimination asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court summarized the facts as follows:
Plaintiff alleges that in 2006 she was hired as a police officer by the City of New York Police Department (“NYPD”) where Dr. John Hassett is the Deputy Chief Surgeon. In January 2021 she contracted COVID-19 and still suffers from long COVID which triggered two auto immune diseases, fibromyalgia and Lupus, causing her to become disabled. Symptoms of her long COVID included brain fog and asthma. She alleges that she was thereafter denied accommodation and cooperative dialogue until she was forced to retire in October 2023, or January 31, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. #1 ¶ 74). She alleges that she was able to work in the Special Victims Unit with accommodation, specifically working from home, as she did from April 2020 to June 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown. Plaintiff stated that despite being disabled, she was able to perform the essential functions of her employment with reasonable accommodation (NYSCEF Doc. #1 ¶ 126). She further stated that she requested an accommodation in January 2022 but was denied although providing an accommodation would not have been a hardship on The City defendants. Plaintiff alleges that from April 2021 until her forced retirement, Dr. Hassett, who she alleges was not properly trained and supervised by The City of New York, created a hostile work environment when he repeatedly harassed her by insisting that she return to work against her doctors’ orders. She stated that she attempted to return to work for five days in April 2021 but could not continue. She further alleges that the lack of cooperative dialogue and being told to resign because of her disability caused her to suffer severe emotional distress.
It then explained that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for disability discrimination and hostile work environment:
In a cause of action for disability discrimination, plaintiff must establish that she suffers from a disability, was qualified to hold the position at issue, was treated differently or worse than other employees because of the disability, and that the treatment was under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (Hosking v Mem. Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 186 AD3d 58, 126 NYS3d 98 [1st Dept 2020]; Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582, 70 NYS3d 177 [1st Dept 2018]; Cuccia v Martinez & Ritorto, PC, 61 AD3d 609, 610, 877 NYS2d 333 [1st Dept 2009]). Here, plaintiff sufficiently pled Count I, disability discrimination. Whether plaintiff could not, with or without reasonable accommodation, carry out the essential requisites of her job as a police officer is an affirmative defense, and not a subject to be considered in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Additionally, plaintiff sufficiently notified The City defendants of her claim of failure to provide reasonable accommodation/engage in cooperative dialogue as pled in Count IV. …
For a hostile work environment claim to survive under the CHRL, a plaintiff must only allege that they were treated “less well” than other employees based on discriminatory animus and the court must look at the totality of the circumstances (Hernandez v Kaisman, 103 AD3d 106 114, 957 NYS2d 53 [1st Dept 2012]). A claim of hostile work environment is sufficiently pled where the alleged comments were more than petty and trivial (Henriquez, 247 AD3d at 536 [“The alleged comments and remarks to plaintiff at the time she made a disability-related request were more than “petty slights and trivial inconveniences’ ”]). Here, plaintiff alleged that Dr. Hassett repeatedly told her to resign based on her disability. Under the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff’s claim of hostile work environment, Count III, which must be liberally construed, and plaintiff accorded the benefit of every favorable inference, is adequately pled as the alleged comments and remarks to plaintiff about being terminated were more than petty and trivial.
Finally, the court reiterated that a person claiming employment discrimination “cannot recover punitive damages pursuant to section 8-502 as the provision does not clearly, expressly and specifically waive New York City’s sovereign immunity.”