Felix v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
| Docket Number | 21 Civ. 6109 (LGS) |
| Decision Date | 24 July 2023 |
| Parties | CYNTHIA FELIX, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Cynthia Felix brings this employment discrimination action against Defendant New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”). Plaintiff claims violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) in the form of discrimination on the basis of her disability failure to accommodate, retaliation and hostile work environment. Defendant moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons below Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are drawn from the parties' Rule 56.1 statements and other submissions on this motion. The facts are undisputed or based on record evidence drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff as the non-moving party. See N.Y. State Teamsters Conf. Pension & Ret Fund v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 24 F.4th 163, 170 (2d Cir. 2022). In considering Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court is “required to accept all sworn statements by [Plaintiff] as to matters on which she [is] competent to testify, including what she did, what she observed, and what she was told by company managers.” Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 921 F.3d 30, 46 (2d Cir. 2019). The Court also “must disregard all evidence favorable to [Defendant] that the jury is not required to believe,” that is, “give credence to the evidence favoring [Plaintiff] as well as that evidence supporting [Defendant] that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.” Id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000)). The facts as summarized below reflect these principles.
Plaintiff started working for the DOE in 1991 as a teacher in Harlem, New York. From 2017 to 2019, Plaintiff was the Senior Director of Bilingual Programs for the Division of Multilingual Learners. Plaintiff worked in an office in downtown Manhattan known as the “Tweed Courthouse” (“Tweed”).
Plaintiff suffers from several medical conditions. As a child, Plaintiff was diagnosed with asthma. In 2006, Plaintiff was diagnosed with atrial septal defect. In 2014 or 2015, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (“COPD”), pulmonary fibrosis and hypertension. In 2016 or 2017, Plaintiff was diagnosed with atrial tachycardia and flutter and arrhythmia.
On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff met with Alicia Roman,[1] former Chief Operating Officer for the Office of the Chief Academic Officer, and Mirza Sanchez-Medina, Plaintiff's then immediate supervisor. Plaintiff's job title was changed to “instructional specialist,” a position that Plaintiff currently holds. An instructional specialist is responsible for reviewing home instruction plans submitted by parents who homeschool their children and providing those parents with guidance and support concerning the guidelines on homeschooling. Roman and Sanchez-Medina informed Plaintiff that her new job would be located in Long Island City, New York, and that as of July 25, 2019, Plaintiff would no longer be working at Tweed. Plaintiff explained that she could not medically tolerate the long commute to Long Island City (“LIC”) and asked Roman if she could be assigned to an office in Brooklyn. Plaintiff never refused the LIC assignment nor did she indicate that she would be returning to Tweed the next day.
When Plaintiff left Tweed on July 24, 2019, she left her Tweed ID on her desk. Tatevik Garibyan, former division chief of operations, acting on the advice of Roman, submitted a request to deactivate the Id. As a result of Garibyan's request, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (the “DCAS”) created a “security alert” for Plaintiff. Garibyan and Roman were aware of the alert and allowed it to remain in place. Between July 24, 2019, and August 1, 2019, a photograph of Plaintiff was posted at the first-floor security desk at Tweed. The photograph had a red banner above Plaintiff's picture that stated “Alert.” Plaintiff felt upset by the posting of her photograph.
On August 1 and 2, 2019, Garibyan and Carl Giaimo, a former DOE director, requested DCAS to move Plaintiff's photograph to a less visible location in deference to employee privacy. On August 2, 2023, DCAS stated that it could not On August 12, 2019, Giaimo emailed DCAS and requested that the alert placed on Plaintiff be removed because her Tweed ID had been deactivated and requested that Plaintiff be permitted to enter Tweed when escorted by another Tweed employee.
On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff submitted an accommodation request form (the “August 6 Request”) to DOE Human Resources. In the August 6 Request, Plaintiff wrote:
I have a complex medical history that includes [congenital] heart disease, cardiac [arrhythmia], COPD, pulmonary hypertension and neuropathy. I am unable to travel long distances and have limits set by my doctor due to my disability.... I am requesting a job location in Brooklyn NY as an EA 41 (my current position). The supervisory postings (NYC DOE careers) have [comparable] positions in Brooklyn that would allow me to fulfill my job duties without compromising my health. I cannot travel to Vernon Blvd location as it [is] a medical hardship.
On August 9, 2019, the DOE granted the August 6 Request. Plaintiff was assigned office space on Court Street in Brooklyn, New York (“Court Street”). Plaintiff's salary, duties and responsibilities stayed the same after her August 6 Request was granted.
On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff reported to Court Street. She was assigned office space in Room 411, on the fourth floor. Plaintiff described the room as an interior office with stuffy and poor air quality, no windows, no Wi-Fi, no ventilation and no air conditioning. Plaintiff and some members of her team were assigned to the same room because it was “important that they stay together.”
On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff submitted another accommodation request form (the “August 26 Request”). In this request, Plaintiff stated:
I have a complex medical history including [congenital] heart disease, cardiac [arrhythmia] [and] pulmonary disease. I was recently diagnosed with job related chronic stress, anxiety and depression that affects my mental health [and] exacerbates my cardiovascular disease and has caused increased abnormal heart heart [sic] rhythms. This has been caused by the retaliatory actions of Ms. Alicia [Roman] who after I asked for an [sic] location accommodation and she denied it she placed my picture at Tweed Courthouse with restricted access causing me great stress and anxiety affecting my disability.
Plaintiff requested that she be reassigned to a vacant position in Brooklyn for which she applied and was qualified. Plaintiff's August 26 Request was denied because it was “not medically warranted.”
On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff emailed Vivian Walton-Smalls, a DOE disability attorney, complaining that Room 411 was a “large windowless room that has no air conditioning, unclear office surfaces, has boxes all over the space and it has poor wireless service.” Plaintiff explained that she is dependent on wireless service for her heart monitor and suffered from a COPD episode and migraine due to the poor air circulation in the room. Plaintiff reiterated her request for a new position and asked to “be assigned to another space that is more appropriate.”
On August 30, 2019, Walton-Smalls informed Plaintiff, “Your department tried but unfortunately could not locate another desk/space for you in 65 Court Street.” The DOE ordered Plaintiff an air purifier and told her that, because wireless service could be good or spotty, even within a floor, she could “takes breaks as necessary to reconnect with the service and to allow for better readings.” On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff reported to Walton-Smalls, On September 11, 2019, Walton-Smalls informed Plaintiff that “it would be an undue burden for your department to relocate you again since you work with your team and there is no space in 65 Court Street that can house your team size at this time.”
Plaintiff subsequently retained the services of Disability Rights New York, a legal services organization. On November 20, 2019 Disability Rights New York renewed Plaintiff's request to be moved to an appropriate office. On February 20, 2020, the DOE offered Plaintiff a “desk on the 10th floor” of Court Street. Plaintiff understood the office to be the room where teachers and supervisors were assigned when disciplinary action was pending and was also known as the “Rubber Room.” Plaintiff also had concerns about being situated on the tenth floor because her work materials were received on the fourth floor. On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff rejected the DOE's proposed accommodation of space on the tenth floor of Court Street as an unreasonable proposal that “would entail a lot of up and down between the 10th and 4th floor.” Plaintiff suggested other rooms on the fourth floor as alternatives....
To continue reading
Request your trial