Hensel v. City of Utica, 6:15-cv-00374

Plaintiff Anthony Hensel was a Utica police officer (2003–2014) who sustained work-related neck/back injuries in 2008 and later was diagnosed with Type II diabetes after a 2009 hospitalization.
Hensel received paid leave/light duty under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 207‑c for several years; Utica terminated those benefits in April 2012 after an IME by Dr. Carr and ordered him back to full duty.
Hensel alleges he could not return because of severe pain from his spine injuries and compensable impairments; he appealed the § 207‑c termination, lost administrative hearings, and filed an Article 78 proceeding.
Utica sent a letter indicating intent to terminate employment purportedly because of disability, and formally fired Hensel on May 1, 2014; Hensel sued under the ADA and Title VII.
On remand from a prior dismissal, Utica moved to dismiss the amended complaint solely arguing Hensel failed to plead a disability; the court considered Hensel’s supplemental pro se filings and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hensel alleged a disability under the ADA	Hensel alleged Type II diabetes (dangerously high glucose, hospitalization, ongoing oral medication) and serious spine injuries	Utica argued Hensel failed to plead a disability qualifying under the ADA	Court held Hensel plausibly alleged a disability—diabetes substantially limits endocrine function and qualifies under ADAAA/EEOC guidance
Whether ameliorative measures defeat disability finding	Hensel argued his untreated condition was severe (nearly died) and ADAAA requires consideration of impairment without regard to mitigating measures	Utica implied controlled condition meant no disability	Court applied ADAAA rule to evaluate impairment in untreated state and found diabetes disabling
Whether the complaint warranted dismissal at Rule 12(b)(6) stage	Hensel urged that allegations and supplemental pro se submissions suffice to survive dismissal	Utica sought dismissal for failure to state a claim	Court denied dismissal because allegations of serious diabetes (and other impairments) plausibly state an ADA claim
Whether to consider ADA retaliation argument raised in reply	Hensel asserted retaliatory termination tied to his appeals and disability	Utica raised dismissal of retaliation in reply brief	Court declined to consider new argument raised first in reply and did not decide retaliation claim

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Allaire Corp. v. Okumus, 433 F.3d 248 (pleading facts accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (ADA burden‑shifting framework)
Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (elements of prima facie case under ADA)
Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740 (deference to EEOC regs in ADA construction)
Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57 (view factual allegations in plaintiff’s favor on dismissal)
Boyd v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 208 F.3d 406 (same rule on motion to dismiss)