Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—S.D.N.Y.: School teachers who requested ground floor accommodations cannot advance claims, (Nov 19, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Climbing stairs does not qualify as a major life activity, which was fatal to their claims that they were qualified individuals with disabilities under the ADA.

Granting summary judgment against ADA discrimination claims asserted by two school teachers, a federal district court in New York determined that the teachers were not qualified individuals for ADA purposes, adopting the view of other Second Circuit courts in similar cases that stair climbing is not significant enough to fall within the short list of functions that make up major life activities. Further, one of the teachers failed to establish that his dysthymic disorder limited a major life activity, as his accommodation requests contained only general accounts of the effects of his depression. Summary judgment was also granted against a teacher’s retaliation claim, with the court finding the denial of his requests did not constitute an adverse employment action (Santana v. Mount Vernon City School District, No. 20-CV-03212 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2025)).

The teachers in this case worked as a special education teacher and a math instructor, respectively. Both began their employment with the district sometime in the early-to-mid part of the 2000s.

Knee surgery. On November 8, 2018, the special education teacher underwent left knee replacement surgery. Upon his return to work, he began requesting accommodations in March 2019 relating to his medical conditions, including dysthymic disorder. One of the requested accommodations was “no stair climbing.”

EEOC charges. Sometime around April 1, 2019, the special education teacher filed discrimination charges with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the EEOC, alleging, among other things, disability discrimination and retaliation.

Ultimately, the district denied most of his accommodation requests on May 29, 2019. As to his “no stair climbing” request, the district informed him to use the elevator.

Math teacher. At some point during the 2012-2013 school year, the math teacher was assaulted by two students, resulting in permanent injuries to his knees and neck. Following this incident, the math teacher claimed he was permitted to work solely on the ground floor through the end of the 2013-2014 school year.

During the 2014-2015 school year, the math teacher submitted a doctor’s note stating that, due to his injuries, he would have to be limited to the ground floor. The district denied the request as unreasonable and informed the math teacher to use the elevator.

After transferring to another school for the 2019-2020 year, the math teacher again requested a ground floor accommodation. However, he never submitted a formal request and the request he did submit was again denied along with instructions to use the elevator. He submitted another informal request the following year which was also denied.

Lawsuit. On April 23, 2020, the teachers commenced this lawsuit asserting claims for ADA discrimination relating to the denial of their requests for ground floor accommodations. The special education teacher also asserted a claim for discrimination related to his dysthymic disorder, along with a retaliation claim. The district moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Major life activity. First, the district argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because the teachers failed to establish that they were qualified individuals with a disability under the ADA. Specifically, the district contended that their mobility conditions that prevented them from climbing stairs did not qualify as a major life activity under the ADA.

There appears to be some conflict in the Second Circuit over whether stair climbing qualifies as a major life activity, observed the court. Most courts have held that stair climbing does not qualify, although a minority of courts have disagreed.

Here, the court determined that stair climbing was not significant enough to fall within the short list of functions that constitute major life activities. In situations similar to the case at hand, Second Circuit courts have adopted this view in the context of teachers requesting ground floor classroom accommodations due to an inability to climb stairs.

Questions of severity. With regard to the special education teacher’s accommodation requests, it was undisputed that he had submitted doctor’s notes referencing “work-related injuries” and various knee and hip procedures. However, he failed to provide sworn testimony from a medical professional opining on the severity of his condition. Without more, the doctor’s notes were insufficient to gauge how impactful his condition was on his ability to climb the stairs.

So too was the case with the math teacher. Prior to the 2019-2020 school year, he had submitted three doctor’s notes requesting ground floor classrooms because of his “partial medial meniscectomy” and “bilateral knee pain.” While the math teacher provided his own testimony in support of his mobility limitations, he failed to provide sworn testimony from a medical professional.

Consequently, the court concluded that neither teacher presented sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to find that their mobility conditions constituted a disability under the ADA and granted summary judgment to the district against these claims.

Dysthymic disorder. Turning the special education teacher’s disability discrimination claim as it related to his dysthymic disorder diagnosis, the school district again argued it was entitled to summary judgment as he failed to establish the condition limited a major life activity.

In connection with this disorder, the teacher asserted that he submitted an accommodation request on March 11, 2019, asking for “additional time for reports, voice to text assistance, [a] quiet area during authorized break, and supportive staff when available.” He also stated he submitted a near identical request on August 2, 2021.

Although the teacher proffered evidence that he suffered from a mental impairment, he failed to provide evidence of impairment of a major life activity, said the court, noting that nothing in his requests implicated the major life activities of “learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” Indeed, the teacher’s own doctor acknowledged that the requests were not related to his medical condition. Because the record contained only general accounts of the effects of the teacher’s depression, he was unable to establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability and summary judgment was granted against this claim.

Retaliation. Finally, the court addressed the special education teacher’s claim of retaliation. The teacher contended he was subjected to adverse actions after requesting accommodations, filing discrimination charges with the EEOC, and commencing this lawsuit. The court did not agree.

The teacher failed to establish that the denial of his accommodation requests constituted an adverse action, said the court. According to the teacher, two months after filing discrimination charges, he was forced to use the stairs to proctor an exam on the second floor despite his accommodation request for “no stair climbing.” Six months after his filing, he received a revised schedule forcing him to teach students with unstable emotional behavioral issues despite requesting an accommodation to teach only higher functioning students.

In this instance, the only alleged adverse actions identified by the teacher was the district’s denial of his accommodation requests, and the court explained that an alleged failure to accommodate a disability subsequent to an ADA request cannot be bootstrapped onto a disability retaliation claim.

Temporal gap. As to the teacher’s retaliation claims related to the commencement of this action, the court found that they fared no better. This lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2020. Meanwhile the teacher alleged the district began taking adverse action against him starting in April 2021, a full year later.

This temporal gap was too attenuated to support a causal inference, said the court. Because the teacher failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the district on this claim.

The case is No. 20-CV-03212 (NSR).

Judge: Román, N.

Attorneys: Bryan Glass (Glass & Hogrogian) for Ray Santana and Brendan Duffy. Gerald Stephen Smith, Jr. (Silverman and Associates) for Mount Vernon City School District/Board of Education, Kenneth Hamilton, Denise Gagne-Kurpiewski, Felicia Gaon, Ronald Gonzalez, Pauline Palmer-Pearce, Erica Naughton, and Satish Jagnandan.

Companies: Mount Vernon City School District/Board of Education

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation NewYorkNews