Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Town of Ramapo

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 3, 2018

RAYMOND K. SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF RAMAPO, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          VINCENT L. BRICCETTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Now 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. § 1331.

         BACKGROUND

         In 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.

         Defendant 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 shoulder injury.

         Because 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 207-c”).[1]

         While 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 home.

         During 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. ¶ 24).

         Beginning 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. ¶ 22).

         Plaintiff 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.