Price v. City of New York
797 F. Supp. 2d 219
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Plaintiff John N. Price, proceeding pro se, sues the City of New York and the NYC Department of Correction alleging ADA discrimination and retaliation.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6); Magistrate Judge Bloom issues an R&R recommending dismissal of retaliation but denial of discrimination.
- Plaintiff sought an accommodation (handicapped parking pass) near his work; Defendants denied the initial request and later provided a distant parking solution.
- The court analyzes timeliness under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) and Holowecki, determining EEOC intake questionnaire can serve as a charge for ADA purposes.
- Plaintiff alleges physical impairments (knee injuries and hand injury) and that these impairments substantially limit walking and working, constituting a disability.
- Court denies in part and grants in part the Defendants’ motion: discrimination claim allowed to proceed as a failure-to-accommodate claim; retaliation claim dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the discrimination claim timely under ADA statutes? | Intake questionnaire/May 2009 charge timely | Only May 7, 2009 charge within 300 days; earlier actions barred | Not time-barred; Holowecki-based reasoning permits intake questionnaire to count as a charge |
| Does the intake questionnaire constitute a valid EEOC charge for ADA purposes? | Questionnaire and attachments activated agency process | Unsigned questionnaire not a charge | Yes; intake questionnaire, amended by May 2009 charge, satisfies ADA regulations and Holowecki standard |
| Has Price stated a prima facie disability discrimination, including a failure to provide reasonable accommodation? | He is disabled; seeks parking accommodation near work; denial is discriminatory | Plaintiff not disabled under ADA; insufficient showing of severity/duration/impact | Plaintiff sufficiently alleged disability and prima facie failure to accommodate |
| Has the employer breached the duty to provide reasonable accommodation regarding parking access? | Requested a front-of-building handicapped space; current accommodation inadequate | Provided a handicapped space and bus access; should be considered reasonable | Factual dispute; denial of a front-of-building parking space remains potentially reasonable; summary judgment inappropriate at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Holowecki v. Federal Express Corp., 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2008) (intake questionnaire can be treated as a charge if reasonably understood as agency action)
- Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers, 192 F.3d 322 (2d Cir.1999) (statutory time limits for EEOC charges)
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.2008) (disability and reasonable accommodation framework under ADA)
- Bartlett v. N.Y. State Bd. of Law Examin'rs, 226 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.2000) (major life activities and impairment framework under ADA)