Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—S.D.N.Y.: Teacher’s request for remote work once in-person learning resumed during COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t reasonable, (Oct 17, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

However, a jury will decide whether the refusal to allow his use of accrued benefits, including his paid sick/leave time, during the period of his unpaid leave constituted an adverse employment action taken because of his disability.

A middle-school social studies teacher with a heart condition, who claimed his only option was to take an unpaid leave of absence after being denied his request to continue teaching remotely after schools reopened during the COVID-19 pandemic, will get a trial on his federal and state law claims alleging the district’s denial of his request to use his accrued benefits in lieu of unpaid leave constituted a discriminatory adverse employment action. However, a federal district court granted summary judgment against him insofar as he alleged the denial of remote work constituted an adverse employment action. The court also tossed his failure to accommodate claims since he undisputedly could not perform the essential function of being physically present in the classroom, and his request to be placed into positions that either didn’t exist or for which there were no vacancies was unreasonable (Schwartz v. Middletown City School District, No. 23 Civ. 1248 (AEK) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2025)).

Heart condition. The teacher worked for the school district since 2000, most recently teaching social studies at a middle school level. He had a heart attack in May 2012, and suffered from heart disease, hypertension, and high blood pressure.

Schools shuttered due to COVID-19. In March 2020, pursuant to a New York State mandate, the district closed its schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, classes were taught remotely for the remainder of the school year. When schools reopened in September 2020, the district required all its classroom teachers to return to in-person instruction.

Remote work request. In August 2020, the teacher requested a disability accommodation to be able to teach remotely for the 2020-2021 school year, “until a vaccine or another way of preventing transmission of Covid virus is discovered and I am able to obtain it.” The district denied his request on August 14, stating that “[a]t this time as a teacher- working from home is not a reasonable accommodation for a teacher,” and offered alternatives that included unpaid leave, additional personal protective equipment (PPE), or assignment to a classroom with better ventilation.

Alternative work. On August 19, he requested that he instead be able to write curriculum or be a “teacher on special assignment.” The district stated that neither type of work was available and offered to allow him to take a one-year unpaid leave of absence. He ultimately took that option, but asked to be able to use his accrued benefits during his leave. His request was denied.

Eventually resigns. In late November, the teacher declined the district’s offer to work remotely during a two-week period when all learning was remote due to an uptick in COVID cases. In January 2021, he also declined the district’s offer to work remotely for the remainder of the school year. On August 31, he requested another one-year unpaid leave of absence for the next school year, and the district granted the request. In September, he declined the position of “COVID Teacher” and later resigned.

Denial of remote work not adverse action. The court first found that the district was entitled to summary judgment on the teacher’s disability discrimination claim insofar as he claimed that the denial of his requested accommodation to teach remotely constituted an adverse employment action. Courts have repeatedly held that “a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in and of itself does not equate to an adverse employment action,” and this same principle applied here.

Notably, there was no evidence that any other classroom teacher was allowed to work remotely during the 2020-2021 school year. Moreover, the denial of his request was not a change in the terms of his conditions of employment at all, let alone a material adverse change. Even though the denial of his accommodation request came during the trying conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were no special circumstances that warranted departure from the general rule that the denial of an accommodation request does not, in itself, amount to an adverse employment action.

Claim as to accrued benefits advances. The court did, however, advance the teacher’s disability discrimination claim insofar as he alleged that the district’s refusal to allow him to use his accrued benefits—including his paid sick/leave time—during the period of his unpaid leave constituted an adverse employment action. Significantly, the district did not properly seek summary judgment as to this theory, and various courts have held that the refusal to allow an employee to use paid sick time can constitute an adverse employment action. Though the district presented evidence that it believed that it was following the provisions of the applicable union contract, which could constitute a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the alleged adverse action, the teacher did not have the opportunity to respond with evidence of pretext.

Accordingly, the employee advanced this theory of disability discrimination to trial. In addition to his ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) claims against the district, the court also allowed his NYSHRL claim to proceed against the superintendent since triable issues existed as to whether he was involved with the personnel director in this decision-making regarding the teacher.

Remote work not reasonable. However, the teacher’s failure to accommodate claim failed as a matter of law. First, his request to teach remotely was not reasonable since it would not have enabled him to perform the undisputed “essential functions” of being physically present in the classroom to supervise students. Indeed, there was no dispute that that a teacher providing instruction remotely to students who were physically present in a classroom could not perform the supervision and safeguarding responsibilities that were part of the district’s job description. “The fact that remote instruction was necessitated by the extraordinary circumstances of the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic at the end of the 2019-2020 school year did not permanently change the essential function of a classroom teaching position,” stated the court.

Alternative positions not available. Though the teacher alternatively proposed that he be assigned to a remote role as a curriculum writer or a “teacher on special assignment,” he failed to show that either position was available, and the district was not required to create a new position for the teacher as an accommodation. For instance, he did not refute that curriculum writing for the 2020-2021 school year was completed in the summer, and the fact that he performed such work several years ago while he was awaiting the outcome of a disciplinary hearing had no bearing on whether such a position was available at the time in question. Similarly, while another teacher had held a “special assignment” position since 2017, there was no evidence another such position was available during the relevant school years.

The case is No. 23 Civ. 1248 (AEK).

Judge: Krause, A.

Attorneys: Bryan Glass (Glass & Hogrogian) for Gregory R. Schwartz. Howard M. Miller (Bond, Schoeneck & King) for Middletown City School District and Richard DelMoro.

Companies: Middletown City School District

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims CoverageLiability NewYorkNews