On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff Drilon Berdynaj filed a putative class action complaint against the City of New York, regarding the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services. The putative class action complaint's allegations include alleged policies at DCAS of: (1) denying disability-based accommodation requests because the disability and/or the requested accommodation was characterized as permanent or indefinite, or lacking a fixed end date; (2) retaliating against employees who requested disability-based remote work accommodations; and (3) repeatedly requiring unnecessary additional medical documentation from employees with permanent or long-term disabilities whose disability accommodations had previously been approved.
NEW YORK, March 18, 2026 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Plaintiff Drilon Berdynaj ("Plaintiff") is employed by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("DCAS").
On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff Drilon Berdynaj filed a putative class action complaint against the City of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
According to the complaint, although the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, or DCAS, has a citywide role in providing equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation guidance to city agencies, DCAS allegedly violated disability-accommodation rights in its treatment of its own employees.
The complaint alleges that the City, acting through DCAS, maintained a policy, pattern, and/or practice of denying disability-based accommodation requests by DCAS employees where the disability or requested accommodation was characterized as permanent, indefinite, or lacking a fixed end date.
The complaint further alleges that the City retaliated against employees who requested disability-based remote-work accommodations and repeatedly required what Plaintiff alleges was unnecessary additional medical documentation from employees with permanent or long-term disabilities who sought continuation of their accommodations.
As to Plaintiff individually, the complaint alleges that DCAS initially approved his remote-work accommodation, later determined in writing that his remote-work arrangement "imposed no undue hardship to the agency," and then later denied continued remote work on the ground that extending the accommodation for an "indefinite period of time" would impose an undue burden on agency operations.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff requested a full-time remote-work accommodation in May 2021 based on chronic respiratory and pulmonary conditions requiring home-based treatment throughout the day, and that he remained able to perform the essential functions of his position with that accommodation.
The complaint further alleges that, in July 2024, a DCAS official told Plaintiff that "reasonable accommodations are typically not permanent or indefinite" before DCAS denied his request to continue working remotely full-time and asserted that an accommodation for an 'indefinite period of time' would impose an undue burden on agency operations.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's disability is permanent and/or long-term.
The complaint also alleges that, after continued accommodation denials and unsuccessful appeals, DCAS retaliated against Plaintiff by requiring him to stop working remotely and take involuntary leave, which allegedly resulted in his being marked AWOL, placed on involuntary FMLA leave, subjected to a Civil Service Law Section 72 fitness-for-duty examination, charged with disciplinary violations. The complaint further alleges that the City demoted Plaintiff on September 15, 2022, one day after he submitted a new reasonable accommodation request and three days after DCAS denied his prior request.
The complaint additionally alleges that on March 4, 2026, DCAS told Plaintiff that he could return to work only if a physician stated that he could return "full duty" or "without restrictions".
On behalf of the proposed classes, the complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), including relief requiring lawful, individualized accommodation procedures and cessation of the challenged practices.
On Plaintiff's individual claims, the complaint seeks back pay, front pay, restoration of leave and benefits, nominal damages, liquidated damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and other appropriate relief.
The case is Berdynaj v. The City of New York, No. 1:26-cv-02126, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before U.S. District Court Judge Dale E. Ho. and Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis.
The complaint contains allegations only, and the Court has not made any findings on the merits.
Media Contact
Cyrus Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, 1 6465603208, [email protected], https://www.theduggerlawfirm.com/
SOURCE The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC
Share this article