Ahmad v. N.Y. Univ.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: JENNIFER L. ROCHON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-01248 (JLR)
• Decision Date: 29 October 2025
• Citation: Ahmad v. N.Y. Univ., 1:22-cv-01248 (JLR) (S.D. N.Y. Oct 29, 2025)
• Parties: HABEEB AHMAD, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, SCOTT MELLYNCHUK and DOUG LAZZARO, Defendants.
• topic: Civil Rights,Labor Law,Employment Law

1

HABEEB AHMAD, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, SCOTT MELLYNCHUK and DOUG LAZZARO, Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-01248 (JLR)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

October 29, 2025

OPINION AND ORDER

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dr Habeeb Ahmad (“Plaintiff”) was an ophthalmologist and associate professor of medicine at New York University (“NYU”), serving as Chief of Service in NYU Langone's Ophthalmology Department. In March 2020, he contracted COVID-19, fell into a monthslong coma, and suffered disabling complications from his illness. Six months later, on September 13, 2020, Plaintiff's medical leave from NYU expired. Because Plaintiff had not fully recovered he was informed that he could submit a request for a reasonable accommodation if he intended to return to work and keep his position. In November 2020, Plaintiff submitted a request to work remotely, which was denied, and over the ensuing weeks, the parties were unable to come to an agreement on an accommodation that would permit Plaintiff to return to work. Plaintiff's leave was ultimately extended through January 4, 2021, by which time he was expected to appear at work, in person, with medical clearance. Plaintiff did not do so, and he was terminated the next day.

Plaintiff brought this suit in February 2022, asserting claims for retaliation and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C §§ 12112(a), 12203(a), the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(a), (7), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a), (7), (28), against NYU,^[1] his supervisor Dr. Doug Lazzaro, and Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) manager Scott Mellynchuk (collectively, “Defendants”). The Court held a jury trial in July 2025, and the jury found NYU liable for discrimination under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL and all three Defendants liable for failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue under the NYCHRL. The jury awarded Plaintiff $2 million in emotional-distress damages, $1.4 million in backpay, $375,000 in front pay and, against only NYU, $250,000 in punitive damages.

Defendants now move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 50(b) and, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur of damages pursuant to Rule 59(a). For the reasons that follow, the Rule 50(b) motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Rule 59(a) motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from the testimony of witnesses and exhibits introduced at trial. Further elaboration on these events is provided later in this Opinion where relevant to the Court's legal analysis.

In March 2020, at which time Plaintiff was working as Chief of Service of the Woodhull Clinic at NYU Langone, Plaintiff became gravely ill with COVID-19. He drove himself to the hospital on March 18, 2020, fell into a coma, was intubated, and awoke two months later.

Plaintiff learned that he had a minor heart attack and developed pneumonia, sepsis, and organ failure, among other things. When Plaintiff was released from the hospital in June 2020, he continued to suffer from complications, namely neuropathy, balance disorder, and foot drop. Trial Transcript (“Tr.”) at 173:5-179:6; Plaintiff's Exhibit (“PX”) 8 at 4.

On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant Lazzaro spoke over the phone after Plaintiff's medical leave expired. Plaintiff expressed his desire to return to work in the future with potential modifications to his role. Lazzaro informed Plaintiff that human resources (“HR”) would be in touch with him regarding next steps. See PX 51.F at 5. On October 6, Patricia Gaeta, a senior administrator in the Ophthalmology Department, emailed Plaintiff and instructed him to complete an attached form to request an accommodation for his disability. See PX 48 at 3; PX 51.F at 3-8; PX 8 at 2-5. Defendant Mellynchuk, an HR and ELR manager, followed up later that day to advise Plaintiff that his six-month medical-leave benefit had expired. PX 48 at 2. He directed Plaintiff to submit any accommodation request, supported by medical documentation, to ELR. Id. at 2-3. Mellynchuk informed Plaintiff that he may be released from employment if he did not submit the required documentation or return to work and advised him that he could apply for long-term disability benefits. Id.

On November 2, Plaintiff submitted his portion of the reasonable-accommodation form to Mellynchuk. Id. at 1. Plaintiff wrote that he was unable to drive and had difficulty walking, although he was making significant progress, and requested a remote-work accommodation. PX 8 at 2-3. On November 12, Plaintiff's physician, Dr. Brad Karp, sent his portion of the form to NYU, identifying Plaintiff's impairments as “foot drop, balance disorder, [and] neuropathy,” the duration of which “depend[ed] on [his] progress.” Id. at 4. Dr. Karp noted that Plaintiff's affected job functions were “walking,” “lifting,” and “driving,” id., and opined based on those limitations that “remote work would be feasible at th[at] time including chief duties[,] teaching and research,” id. at 5. No one from NYU spoke to Plaintiff about his request between November 12 and November 18. Tr. at 192:12-193:1.

On November 18, Mellynchuk advised Plaintiff that his accommodation request was under review. PX 47 at 1. The next day, Mellynchuk informed Plaintiff that his request was denied, that his leave would be extended through November 30, and that Plaintiff would be released from employment if he did not return to work, in person, on December 1. PX 46 at 1. Mellynchuk explained that a remote-work accommodation would not allow Plaintiff to perform the essential functions of his role, which was “predominantly clinical in nature, with comparatively minor academic and administrative duties,” and that “[t]he vast majority of [his] clinical responsibilities c[ould] only be performed in person.” Id. He noted that onsite patient care was “an essential function of [his] job that [could not] be removed or delegated to other clinicians without unduly burdening the service and negatively impacting patient care.” Id. At trial, Plaintiff strongly disputed Mellynchuk's characterization of his job duties and maintained that there were other reasonable accommodations that would have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his position without imposing an undue burden on NYU. See, e.g., Tr. at 206:21-207:15. Mellynchuk testified that he made this decision based on the accommodations form, Plaintiff's contract (which described his duties as 90 percent clinical, see PX 40 at 1), and discussions with Lazzaro and Gaeta. See Tr. at 677:15-679:2, 699:16-19.

After receiving the denial from Mellynchuk, Plaintiff testified that he feared that he would be fired because he was given less than two weeks' notice to return to work, and his only request was denied without further conversation or inquiry. Plaintiff subsequently made multiple attempts to get in contact with Lazzaro, ELR, HR, the Dean of NYU Langone, and Vice Chair Dr. Kathryn Colby. See id. at 212:13-213:15; 217:7-219:4. Internal emails from November 20 indicate that Plaintiff's communications were received, although the relevant decisionmakers in those departments did not believe that a solution was possible. See PX 51.M at 5 (Dean Grossman: “Can someone handle this? Thx”); id. (Andrew Brotman: “His illness was terrible but an ophtho cannot work from home.”); id. at 4 (Andrew Rubin: “[I] know Dr. Lazzaro was encouraging him to take LTD but he was resistant”); id. at 3 (Lazzaro: “[U]nless we change what he does, I do not see a solution.”); id. at 2 (Rubin: “HR will contact him on Monday to tell him [the] decision is final - [h]e should apply for LTD”). Between November 19 and November 30, which included the Thanksgiving holiday, Plaintiff heard back from only Austin Bender, the Director of ELR, who called Plaintiff on the night of November 20, after Plaintiff emailed the Dean. Tr. at 217:22-218:9. According to Plaintiff, Bender raised his voice and “was kind of yelling saying, we don't do remote work.” Id. at 218:9-10. Plaintiff testified that after Bender “eventually . . . calm[ed] down a bit,” Plaintiff spoke for a few minutes regarding his request and sought clarification about return-to-work expectations. Id. at 218:3-24; see id. at 218:20-24 (Plaintiff: “I said, listen, you are firing me December 1. Nobody has told me where to go, which location....What I could do, what I can't do, I don't understand. You're basically firing me. What can I do?”). Bender told Plaintiff that he was “going on vacation” but would “look into it” and reach back out to Plaintiff before December 1. Id. at 218:25-219:4.

Plaintiff testified that he did not hear back from Bender, so he hired an employment attorney to contact NYU on his behalf. Id. at 219:5-220:10. On the morning of November 30, the day before Plaintiff was expected to report to work, Plaintiff's attorney sent a letter to Mellynchuk and Dan Driesen, NYU's in-house counsel, to facilitate further conversation. See PX 44; PX 15; Tr. at 220:1-10, 587:23-588:10. Plaintiff sent the following email to Mellynchuk later that afternoon:

My attorney Scott Simpson sent you and Dan Driesen a letter this morning. As of now, I know that if I don't physically report to work tomorrow NYU has said they will release me. Despite the health risks I face, I will be reporting to Woodhull tomorrow following my physical therapy appointment in the morning. It seems at this point I have no other choice. I should be there by 1 pm.

PX 44. Mellynchuk thanked Plaintiff for the message and...