1:18-cv-06657
S.D.N.Y.Sep 24, 2024Background
- Maya Zabar, an English teacher with diagnosed depression and anxiety, worked at the High School of Art and Design, part of NYC Department of Education (DOE) from 2013 onward.
- After new administration (Principal Ureña and AP Rosales) began in 2016, Zabar alleges a sharp increase in disciplinary actions and negative performance evaluations.
- Zabar requested certain accommodations (room change, written instructions) citing her mental health conditions, and claims she was open about her disabilities at work.
- Between 2016–2018, Zabar received multiple disciplinary letters, negative evaluations, and was ultimately subject to charges under NY Education Law § 3020-a; she later filed EEOC and federal complaints, asserting disability-based retaliation under ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
- The Court previously dismissed all claims except retaliation under ADA (against DOE), NYSHRL, and NYCHRL (against Ureña, Rosales, Perez). Zabar died in 2022; the administrator of her estate was substituted as plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zabar engaged in protected activity | Requests for accommodations (room change, written instructions) and complaints/EEOC filings were protected activity | Some requests did not qualify as reasonable accommodation requests | Court assumed without deciding that activities were protected |
| Whether there was a causal connection between protected activity and adverse actions | Temporal proximity between requests/complaints and disciplinary actions/negative evaluations suggested causal connection | No sufficient causal link; reasons for actions were based on performance | Court assumed without deciding that temporal proximity suggested causation |
| Whether DOE's/Administrators' actions were legitimate or pretext | Defendants' rationale for discipline/evaluations was pretext for retaliation based on disability and protected activities | All adverse actions had legitimate, documented performance or conduct reasons | Defendants provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons not shown to be pretext |
| Whether plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to survive summary judgment | Evidence and timing permitted inference of retaliatory motive | No evidence beyond timing; no direct or circumstantial evidence of animus | Temporal proximity alone was insufficient; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (burden-shifting standard for retaliation under ADA/NYSHRL)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (proof structure for retaliation claims)
- Natofsky v. City of New York, 921 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2019) (causation in ADA and NYSHRL retaliation)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2012) (NYCHRL retaliation standard)
- Beyer v. Cnty. of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standards and inferences)