A legal complaint alleges that current policies for handling disability accommodations at a major city agency have led to repeated denials, unnecessary medical documentation demands, and retaliation against employees requesting remote work due to disabilities. The lawsuit claims these practices affect not only the individual plaintiff but also a broader group of similarly situated employees.
The complaint was filed by Drilon Berdynaj in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 16, 2026, naming the City of New York as defendant. Berdynaj is represented by The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, and brings this case both individually and as a proposed class action on behalf of other affected employees within the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS).
According to the filing, DCAS allegedly implemented categorical time limits on disability accommodations, demanded additional medical documentation beyond what was necessary, and retaliated against employees after they requested remote-work arrangements due to their disabilities. The complaint states: “This action challenges the City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services’ use of categorical durational limits on disability accommodations, repeated demands for unnecessary additional medical documentation, and retaliation following remote-work disability accommodation requests.”
The plaintiff seeks to represent three classes: those denied accommodations due to permanent or indefinite disabilities; those who faced adverse actions such as demotion or forced leave within seventy-five days after requesting remote work; and those required to provide further medical proof after an initial approval. The relevant periods for these alleged practices begin in March 2023 or September 2022 depending on the class definition.
Berdynaj alleges that despite clear guidance from federal law and internal city policy requiring individualized assessments for accommodation requests, DCAS relied on blanket rules that resulted in automatic denials if an accommodation—such as full-time remote work—was considered permanent or without a set end date. For example, in July 2024 a DCAS official told Berdynaj that “reasonable [a]ccommodations are typically not permanent or indefinite,” which preceded denial of his request for continued remote work.
The complaint outlines how Berdynaj’s chronic respiratory illness requires him to remain close to specialized equipment at home and prevents him from being away from his residence for more than three hours at a time. Medical documentation supporting his need for full-time remote work was provided repeatedly since May 2021. Despite this evidence—and despite successful performance while working remotely—DCAS allegedly denied ongoing accommodation requests multiple times.
The document details several instances where DCAS required new rounds of medical paperwork even after already approving previous requests with similar information. At one point in October 2021, DCAS refused an extension unless more detailed clinical findings were submitted. Later reversals sometimes followed these denials but often came with new conditions or deadlines attached.
In September 2022, after submitting another request supported by updated medical notes, Berdynaj was demoted from his senior management role just one day later—a move he claims was retaliatory. He describes being reassigned from senior management duties to a position involving more frequent site visits in an apparent effort to undermine his ability to continue working remotely.
The complaint also notes that during this period DCAS posted job openings effectively replacing Berdynaj’s former position while he remained employed in a diminished capacity. Throughout these events, there were no documented operational difficulties caused by his remote work arrangement according to the plaintiff’s account.
In April 2023, DCAS conditionally approved another short-term extension but again required further physician documentation specifying when he could return fully in-person—a demand described as duplicative given prior submissions detailing his permanent condition. Eventually in May 2023 DCAS acknowledged in writing that extending Berdynaj’s remote work would not impose an undue hardship at that time.
However, in July 2024 officials reiterated their stance against indefinite accommodations and formally denied continued full-time remote work because it lacked a fixed end date: “Continuing to provide you with an accommodation to work remotely full-time for an indefinite period of time is an undue burden to the agency’s operations.”
Berdynaj asserts these practices violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act—which prohibits discrimination based on disability—and interfere with rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He seeks both individual remedies (including back pay, front pay, restoration of benefits) and class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring changes in city policy so that all reasonable-accommodation decisions are made through individualized assessment rather than blanket rules.
No judge is named explicitly in the document provided. Plaintiff is represented by The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC; case number is 1:26-cv-2126.
Source: 126cv02126_Drilon_Berdynaj_v_The_City_of_New_York_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York..pdf
