The Dugger Law Firm Has Filed a Disability Discrimination Class Action on Behalf of Professor Jan Ramjerdi and a Class of CUNY Faculty Challenging Denials of Remote Work Accommodations and FMLA Leave

Plaintiff Professor Ramjerdi (“Plaintiff”) has served as a tenured Associate Professor of English at Queensborough Community College (“QCC”) since September 1, 2009, and has taught at QCC since 2003.

On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the City of New York (“NYC”), the City University of New York (“CUNY”), QCC, CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez (in his official capacity), QCC President Christine Mangino, QCC Human Resources Director Martha Aspromatis, QCC Human Resources Director for Benefits Ysabel Macea, QCC ADA Compliance Coordinator/Assistant Vice President for Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Amaris Matos, and former QCC Interim Executive Director for Human Resources Sangeeta Noel (collectively, “Defendants”).

The class action complaint’s allegations include an alleged policy, pattern, and/or practice of: (1) illegal denials of mental health disability-based fully remote work accommodation requests by full-time faculty; (2) illegal denials of requests for FMLA leave by full-time faculty based on a pending disability-based accommodation request and/or the permanent nature of the disability or serious health condition; (3) retaliation against full-time faculty for requesting disability-based fully remote work accommodations and/or FMLA leave; (4) an illegal medical separation policy that permitted the separation of full-time faculty without consideration or evaluation of their entitlement to a disability-based reasonable accommodation; and (5) illegal provision of unprotected “general accommodations” of fully remote work instead of protected disability-based accommodations, among other challenged practices alleged to violate the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA, and/or New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).

The class action complaint alleges that all, or almost all, CUNY faculty taught fully remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic, from mid-March 2020 through the spring 2021 semester (approximately three academic semesters). The class action complaint additionally alleges that, for the spring 2022 semester, CUNY announced a 70/30 In-Person/Remote policy requiring 70% in-person courses and 30% remote courses, including that, “[a]side from unusual circumstances, all full-time faculty members should teach at least one in-person course on campus.”  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants repeatedly illegally denied Plaintiff’s, and a class of full-time faculty members’, requests for mental health disability-based fully remote work accommodations because of the 70/30 In-Person/Remote policy.

The class action complaint further alleges that, after initially filing pretextual and/or retaliatory disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, NYC, CUNY, and/or QCC applied their medical separation policy to medically separate Plaintiff in furtherance of their retaliation and/or discrimination.  The class action complaint alleges that they did so by circularly relying on the very mental health disabilities that Plaintiff had sought a fully remote work accommodation and FMLA leave to address, as the primary basis for Plaintiff’s medical separation. The class action complaint alleges that this medical separation policy was a policy, practice, and/or standard operating procedure of NYC, CUNY, and/or QCC of failure to accommodate disabilities, retaliation for requesting a fully remote work accommodations and/or FMLA leave, and interference with disability and/or FMLA rights.

The class action complaint additionally alleges disparate impact violations, violations of FMLA notice rights, and Rehabilitation Act medical inquiry violations.

The fifteen-count class action complaint seeks, from some or all Defendants, back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement, compensatory damages, nominal damages, actual damages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages against the QCC individual defendants sued in their individual capacities.

Plaintiff’s requested class-wide injunctive relief seeks an injunction: (1) prospectively exempting disability-based fully remote work requests from the 70/30 In-Person/Remote Policy; (2) requiring the creation and funding of an independent office and/or ombudsman to objectively evaluate all disability-based remote work requests and FMLA leave requests; (3) requiring the re-evaluation of all disability-based remote work requests and FMLA leave requests within the last three years by an independent office and/or ombudsman; (4) reinstatement of all class members terminated or medically separated because of an illegal denial of a disability-based fully remote work accommodation and/or FMLA leave request; and (5) reclassification of time illegally categorized as an unauthorized absence as a protected authorized absence, under the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA and/or NYCHRL.

The case is Ramjerdi v. The City of New York, et al., No. 1:24-cv-03380-NGG-RML and is before U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Press release is available here. Media Contact: Cyrus E. Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC - (646) 560-3208 - cd@theduggerlawfirm.com.

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC: Former Mayor’s Office of Appointments Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti Files Discrimination and Retaliation Class Action Against NYC

Former Mayor’s Office of Appointments (“MOA”) Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti has filed an individual and class action complaint against the City of New York (“NYC”), former Director and Principal EEO Officer for MOA Joni Kletter (“Kletter”), NYC Law Department EEO Officer Sosimo Fabian (“Fabian”), and NYC Agency Counsel Michael Levario (“Levario”).

Filed pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Section 1981, Section 1983, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), the twelve-count complaint includes individual claims for: (1) race, ancestry, color, and race and/or ancestry-plus gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and stereotyping discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) interference with FMLA and NYCHRL rights; (4) NYCHRL aiding and abetting and attempted aiding and abetting liability; and (5) NYCHRL disparate impact liability.

The complaint’s allegations include that Defendants NYC and Kletter discriminated against Ms. Perez-Pedemonti because of her Hispanic and/or Hispanic female identity (and/or color), and/or retaliated against her because of her complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation at MOA, including by failing to promote her in favor of Defendant Levario, demoting her, stripping her of job duties, and/or attempting to force her to sign a confidentiality agreement, as well as by creating a discriminatory hostile work environment.  The complaint further alleges FMLA retaliation and interference claims against Defendants NYC and Kletter.

Beyond the allegations of discrimination and retaliation directed at Ms. Perez-Pedemonti, the complaint further alleges that Defendant Kletter: (1) agreed that “‘three Muslims’ were ‘too many’” for a Civic Engagement Commission and then had two Muslims removed from contention for the candidate pool; (2) responded inappropriately to a sexual harassment complaint against Defendant Levario that Ms. Perez-Pedemonti had reported to Defendant Kletter, as MOA’s EEO Officer, on behalf of a female subordinate; (3) mocked current Commissioner Everardo Jefferson for having a Spanish accent during a practice interview when he was a candidate for the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission; (4) repeatedly discriminated against MOA’s Black female former Legal Director; and (5) told Ms. Perez-Pedemonti that she considered MOA’s former Legal Director’s taking of FMLA leave to have been “insubordination.”  Ms. Perez-Pedemonti additionally alleges that she was retaliated against after she complained about some of this discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct, as well as following her complaint to human resources of a “culture of racial and ethnic discrimination at MOA.” 

In addition to individual claims, Ms. Perez-Pedemonti alleges class claims, for injunctive and declaratory relief, on behalf of all NYC employees who filed EEO complaints against a Commissioner, Head of Agency, and/or EEO Officer.  Specifically, the complaint alleges, a pattern or practice, in violation of the NYCHRL, of retaliation, interference, and/or aiding and abetting of NYCHRL violations, and in violation of  Section 1981 concerning a pattern or practice of retaliation, by the NYC Law Department and/or its EEO Officer Sosimo Fabian, against NYC employees who made EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agencies, and/or EEO Officers that were referred to the Law Department for resolution.  The complaint alleges these violations occurred through the Law Department and/or Fabian: (1) issuing findings that their EEO complaints were “unsubstantiated”; (2) conducting bad faith investigations of EEO complaints; (3) conducting pre-determined investigations of EEO complaints; (4) failing to accurately communicate the actual results of EEO complaint investigations; and/or (5) failing to properly, fully, and/or fairly investigate employee complaints of discrimination and retaliation.

The complaint additionally alleges a disparate impact on NYC employees who made EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agency, and/or EEO Officers, as a result of NYC’s applicable EEO policies, including: (1) referral of such EEO complaints to the Law Department for resolution; and/or (2) the Department of Citywide Administrative Services’ (“DCAS’s”) issuance of EEO guidelines and policies that did not provide clear standards for resolution of EEO claims and/or that did not accurately reflect the legal standards specific to the NYCHRL.  The complaint alleges that these, and other EEO policies, resulted in a disparate impact on the class through disproportionate rates of discipline, resignation, and/or termination.

The complaint further alleges that, in violation of Section 1983, the City has, on a class-wide basis, failed to adequately train and/or supervise Commissioners, Heads of Agency, EEO Officers, including regarding: (1) appropriately identifying potential discrimination and retaliation violations (including oral complaints); and (2) refraining from retaliating and/or instructing others to refrain from retaliating against NYC employees who made EEO complaints concerning Commissioners, Agency Heads, and/or EEO Officers.  It further alleges that NYC had a policy or practice of retaliation against employees who made sex discrimination, race discrimination, or related retaliation EEO complaints against Commissioners, Agency Heads, and/or EEO Officers.

Ms. Perez-Pedemonti’s complaint, in addition to seeking individual relief, seeks a class-wide injunction requiring the reevaluation of EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agency, and EEO Officers, that the Law Department previously found to be “unsubstantiated,” during the relevant class period, as well as prospective evaluation of such future EEO complaints, by an independent body such as an independent office, ombudsman, or the NYC Office of the Public Advocate.

Perez-Pedemonti v. The City of New York et al., No. 1:22-cv-06180 (NRB) (JW), is proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Media Contact: Cyrus E. Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, (646) 560-3208, cd@theduggerlawfirm.com

Former Urban Outfitters Clerk Sues For Co.'s Indifference to Customers' Sexual Harassment

From the NY Daily News:

"Tatiana Swiderski, 25, said her bosses at the Fifth Avenue store turned a blind eye [to] the harassment — refusing to call cops on the pervy patrons and holing her away in the stock room for complaining.

'They made it their mission to make me feel invalidated,' Swiderski told the Daily News. 'They tried to make me feel like I was a crazy over-reactor.'"

Now she's suing the chain for sexual harassment and retaliation."  (link)

Some of the details:

"The sexual assault came just two weeks after security told her a man had been following her and another employee with a video camera and shooting up their skirts as they went up the stairs. While the guards made him erase the video, they let him go and refused to call the police or tell her his name so she could do so. Her suit even claims that a guard mocked her.

After she complained to management, a security guard allegedly told her to “stop being a stupid bitch.” She also claims that a guard began patting her down as she left work, something she felt was sexually inappropriate and not done to other employees."  (link)

Not only are the details pretty horrifying but it appears to be a potentially industry-wide issue:

"A 2002 study in Canada found that harassment for these workers doesn’t just come from coworkers, but from customers, as it did for Swiderski, which constitutes a “significant problem.” A majority of women in retail said they had been sexually harassed by customers on the job, but given that companies are focused on satisfying the customer, women face constraints in how they can handle it and many are reluctant to bring it up."  (link)

According to the EEOC, it is a clear violation of federal discrimination law for an employer to take no action in response to harassment of employees by customers -- where it has notice of the conduct:

"The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action."  (link)

The above response is, to put it lightly, clearly inadequate.

I was also struck by a throw away line in the middle of the NY Daily News. Interestingly -  the article notes that when Swiderski began working:

"She said there was an early sign of trouble — a co-worker told her she'd only been hired because she's 'tall, pretty, thin and white.'"  (link)

If that is accurate (which it may or may not be) Urban Outfitters may be headed for a repeat of  a large racial discrimination case brought by LDF regarding hiring for "the American look" at Abercrombie and Fitch:

"Th[at suit alleged that Abercrombie refused to hire qualified minority applicants as Brand Representatives working on the sales floor while discouraging applications from minority candidates. It also charged that in the rare instances when minorities were hired, they were given undesirable positions to keep them out of the public eye.

* * *

In November 2004, LDF and co-counsel reached a settlement with the company, winning $40 million dollars for rejected applicants and employees who had been discriminated against by the company. The settlement’s consent decree also required the company to institute a range of policies and programs to promote diversity among its work force and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender."  (link)

Of course this is just the hearsay statement of a co-worker.  But, if true, Urban Outfitters (or at least this store location) may also soon be facing suit on the race discrimination front.

It will be interesting to follow this case as it develops.