The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT SWEET, Senior District Judge
Defendants the City of New York (the "City"), the New York City
Department of Transportation (the "DOT"), and Iris Weinshall,
Commissioner of the DOT ("Weinshall") (collectively, the "Defendants")
have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R. Civ. P., to dismiss the
complaint of plaintiff Peter Giaccio, Jr. ("Giaccio").*fn1 For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in
On May 13, 2004, Giaccio, a boiler-maker employed by the DOT, filed his
complaint pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the "ADA"), the New York State Human Rights
Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (the "NYSHRL"), the New York City Human
Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (the "NYCHRL"), and
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his rights to confidentiality, due
process and equal protection were violated when Defendants failed to
maintain the confidentiality of Giaccio's random drug and alcohol test
results, resulting in the dissemination of those results in a newspaper
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that tests
for illegal drugs are not considered "medical examinations" under the ADA
and, therefore, are not protected by the ADA's confidentiality
provisions, the basis for Giaccio's ADA claim. Defendants further argue
that the factual allegations of the complaint are conclusory and
insufficient to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the Court
should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Giaccio's
claims arising under the NYSHLR and the NYCHRL in the event that
Giaccio's federal claims are dismissed.
The motion of Defendants was heard and marked fully submitted on
September 15, 2004.
The following factual background is drawn from the allegations of the
complaint. These allegations are accepted as true for the purposes of
this motion, see Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d
Cir. 2002), and do not constitute findings of fact by the Court. Giaccio is a resident of the State of New York who was at all relevant
times employed by the City by and through the DOT, a municipal division
of the City which employs more than fifteen people. Weinshall is the
Commissioner of the DOT and is being sued here in both her individual and
As part of his job, Giaccio underwent random drug and alcohol testing.
It is alleged that the results of the random drug and alcohol testing
constitute confidential medical information maintained by Defendants as
Despite the allegedly confidential nature of the medical information in
question, "defendant and/or its agents and/or employees took no steps
whatsoever to protect and/or safeguard the drug and alcohol test results
from unauthorized disclosure and/or dissemination." (Compl. at ¶ XV.)
Defendants, or any of them, are further alleged to have failed to
maintain the drug and alcohol test results on separate forms and/or in
separate medical files as mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 12112.
As a result of the failure of Defendants, their employees and/or their
agents to maintain the drug and alcohol test results as confidential
medical information, the results of Giaccio's drug and alcohol tests were
disseminated to the media. In particular, on November 21, 2003, a
newspaper disseminated by Newsday referred to the results of a drug and
alcohol test administered to Giaccio. The information contained in the Newsday article regarding Giaccio's
confidential medical information was provided by Defendants, their
employees and/or their agents.
Giaccio has alleged that he suffered humiliation, emotional harm,
embarrassment, and harm to his reputation, among other injuries, as a
result of Defendants' acts.
The Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
Fed.R.Civ.P., the Court construes the complaint liberally, "accepting all
factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor," Chambers, 282 F.3d at 152 (citing
Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687, 691 (2d Cir. 2001)), although "mere
conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions" need not be accepted. First
Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 771 (2d Cir. 1994).
"The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether
the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims."
Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375, 378 (2d Cir. 1995)
(quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). In other words,
"`the office of a motion to dismiss is merely to assess the legal
feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence
which might be offered in support thereof.'" Eternity Global Master Fund
Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of New York, 375 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Geisler v.
Petrocelli, 616 F.2d ...