SUMMARY — Employment and Labor attorney Charles Lazo, with assistance from partner Scott Green, successfully secured the complete dismissal of a lawsuit brought against a dialysis center by a patient who claimed that his access to care and rights as a disabled patient were hampered when the facility allegedly failed to provide transportation to his appointments and retaliated against him for raising concerns.

A skilled defense waged by Goldberg Segalla attorney Charles A. Lazo resulted in a court’s full dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a patient against a dialysis center in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff claimed that the facility failed to provide him with transportation to and from his appointments and the facility’s response to his complaint’ against him for voicing concerns about this issue. The plaintiff claimed that the facility’s actions effectively denied him access to care and violated his rights as a disabled individual.

The plaintiff alleged that the facility’s failure to provide him with transportation constituted a failure to accommodate claim and that its response to his related complaints amounted to unlawful retaliation —all in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The plaintiff further claimed that the facility’s actions caused him significant emotional distress, which served as the basis for his intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

In addition, the plaintiff alleged that by squashing his speech as a patient, the facility violated New York Public Health Law and breached a fiduciary duty owed to him by the facility’s director of social, who the plaintiff claimed failed to advocate for him and instead undermined his ability to voice his complaints.

Charles, an attorney in our firm’s Employment and Labor practice group, determined early that a motion to dismiss under federal Rule 12(b)(6) was the most effective approach to his defense of our client. Assisting him in the case was Scott R. Green, a Goldberg Segalla Employment and Labor group partner.

While the patient presented his claim as a “failure to accommodate,” Charles argued that the plaintiff was, in fact, challenging the adequacy of services. Thus, Charles noted the plaintiff unintentionally acknowledged in the complaint that he did receive the medical treatment he required but objected to the manner in which the transportation was arranged. The defense emphasized that objections to how transportation was arranged or facilitated do not amount to actionable failure to accommodate claim. The court agreed.

Charles also argued the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege intentional discrimination, as nothing in the complaint suggested there was any action taken by the facility was motivated by any discriminatory animus. The court adopted Charles’ reasoning and found that the plaintiff failed to assert a viable intentional discrimination claim.

As for the plaintiff’s state and common-law claims, Charles maintained the New York Public Health Law provision cited by the patient did not provide a private right of action, and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege outrageous conduct to support his intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Charles also argued that even if a fiduciary duty existed, plaintiff failed to allege any actual breach, particularly since the plaintiff acknowledged receiving necessary medical treatment and failed to show his care was impacted by the alleged misconduct.

Although the plaintiff did not plead a specific monetary demand in his initial complaint, the range and nature of his claims — including those under the federal and state and city anti-discrimination laws — presented a real risk of substantial exposure, both in terms of liability and defense costs.

Fortunately, the court agreed with the arguments Charles raised, granting our client’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the court denied plaintiff’s leave to amend on the basis that amendment would be futile. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state- and local- law claims, dismissing those without prejudice. Additional motions filed by the plaintiff, including motions to disqualify defense counsel and file unauthorized sur-replies, were also denied. As a result, the litigation was resolved at the pleadings stage, without the need for discovery or further proceedings.

A key factor in obtaining the favorable ruling for our client was Charles’ ability to successfully illustrate the plaintiff’s mischaracterization of the transportation process by showing the plaintiff’s allegations amounted to dissatisfaction with service quality and not exclusion or denial of access.

Key too was Charles’ professionalism and precision in responding to the plaintiff’s repetitive and often adversarial filings. Rather than treating the plaintiff’s complaint as merely disorganized, the allegations against our client were taken seriously and each was considered comprehensively, with Charles and Scott preemptively addressing the arguments likely to be raised by the plaintiff.