United States District Court, S.D. New York
RAYMOND K. SMITH, Plaintiff,
TOWN OF RAMAPO, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Raymond K. Smith, a retired police officer for the Town of
Ramapo Police Department (the “Police
Department”), brings this case against the Town of
Ramapo, alleging it discriminated against him in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the
“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
pending is defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #34).
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
deciding the pending motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as
true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the amended
complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in
plaintiff's favor, as summarized below.
continuously employed plaintiff as a police officer from 2003
until plaintiff's retirement in 2017. On July 12, 2014,
while performing his duties as a police officer, plaintiff
sustained a serious injury to his right shoulder. Medical
treatment, including surgery, did not correct plaintiff's
of his injury, plaintiff could no longer work as a police
officer. In August 2014, plaintiff applied for, and defendant
approved, plaintiff's disability status under New York
General Municipal Law § 207-c (“Section
plaintiff was on Section 207-c disability, but prior to his
retirement in 2017, defendant continued to assign plaintiff
to one of the Police Department's three rotating shifts.
While on shift, plaintiff was required to stay at home unless
he needed to see a doctor, go to the grocery store, or attend
religious services. If plaintiff left home during his shift
for these limited purposes, defendant required plaintiff to
call the Police Department when he left and returned to his
plaintiff's time on Section 207-c disability, defendant
did not allow plaintiff to use previously accrued personal
time or bereavement leave to take time “off”
while assigned to a shift. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14). In
addition, plaintiff was not allowed to “accrue time as
non-disabled officers were, ” which allegedly
“deprived plaintiff of approximately 1.5 years of
accrued time, 45 vacation days, 18 holiday days, 9 personal
days and 6 family emergency leave days.” (Am. Compl.
May 7, 2016, defendant began allowing plaintiff to request
time off, but “required plaintiff to submit great
detail about his plans, his route of travels, his destination
and other information [which, according to plaintiff, was]
not required of non-disabled officers.” (Am. Compl.
filed his initial complaint on May 26, 2016. On November 4,
2016, defendant moved pursuant to Rule 12(c) for judgment on
the pleadings. By Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2017, the
Court granted defendant's motion, but sua sponte
granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc.
#32). In its Opinion and Order, the Court explained
plaintiff's complaint was deficient because he failed to
allege he was a “qualified individual” as defined
by the ADA. See Smith v. Town of Ramapo, 2017 WL