Person v. Mulligan Security Corp.
1:22-cv-02980
E.D.N.YMay 10, 2024Background
- Edward Person, a pro se plaintiff, sued Mulligan Security Corp. and supervisors Bob Congleton and Tom Collins, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA.
- Person claimed he is disabled and was discriminated against, asserting hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and failure to accommodate claims.
- The court previously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss but allowed Person to amend his complaint; the amended complaint was also dismissed—this time with prejudice.
- Person filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing Congleton had notice of his disability, citing an incident and requesting the court subpoena video footage.
- He also raised, for the first time, a defamation allegation against the defendant’s law firm, Nixon Peabody.
- The motion for reconsideration was filed after the 14-day deadline; the court addressed both timeliness and substantive merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration | Plaintiff sought reconsideration after dismissal | Motion was untimely (missed 14-day deadline) | Denied as untimely; merits also discussed |
| ADA Individual Liability | Claims against supervisors for ADA discrimination | Individuals not liable under ADA | Dismissed; no individual ADA liability |
| Sufficiency of Pleading (Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment/Accommodation) | Plaintiff pleaded facts, referenced exhibits and incident | No facts plead for viable ADA claims; not severe conduct | Dismissed; insufficient facts for actionable ADA claims |
| New Defamation Claim (Against Law Firm) | Raised defamation claim in opposition, wanted court to investigate | Not part of complaint; improper on reconsideration | Denied; new claims cannot be raised on reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., 935 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (reconsideration requires showing court overlooked controlling law or critical facts)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (motion for reconsideration is not for new arguments or facts)
- Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2000) (standards for hostile work environment claims)