Cullen v. Verizon Communications
Filing
24
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 11/21/2015. (MEAL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID CULLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
14-CV-464S
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS
Defendant.
1.
Plaintiff alleges that his former employer failed to accommodate his disability and
terminated his employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and the New York Human Rights Law,
N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq. Presently before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for reconsideration of the July 24, 2015
Decision and Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion
of a district court judge. Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp., 867 F.Supp.2d 344, 360
(W.D.N.Y.
2012); American ORT, Inc. v. ORT Israel, No. 07-CV-2332, 2009 WL
233950, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009). “[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless
the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion
reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.1995).
Thus, “reconsideration may be granted to correct a clear error, or prevent manifest
injustice.” Salamon, 867 F.Supp.2d at 360.
1
2.
Defendant’s dismissal motion was granted on the ground that Plaintiff failed to
sufficiently plead that he suffered from a qualifying disability. Plaintiff argues that this
decision constituted clear error in that it improperly imposed a heightened pleading
standard not required by Iqbal or Twombly. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
he sufficiently stated that “his alcoholism is a disability. This is an assertion of fact that
must be accepted as true. The Decision has no factual basis, nor authority to presume
it to be false at the pleading stage.” (Docket No. 20-1 at 7.) That Plaintiff suffers from
alcoholism is absolutely a factual allegation this Court must – and did – accept as true.
See Goldstein v. Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008), cert denied, 554 U.S. 930
(2008). However, the bare assertion that Plaintiff’s alcoholism constitutes a disability
within the meaning of the ADA is a legal conclusion to which no deference is afforded.
This is because, although considered an impairment under the ADA, alcoholism is not
recognized as a per se disability. See Reg'l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of
Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 46-47 (2d Cir. 2002), superseded by statute on other grounds,
ADA Amendments of 2008, Pub.L. No. 110–325, 122 Stat. 3553. Instead, to plausibly
state that he was entitled to pursue relief under the ADA, Plaintiff was required to allege
sufficient factual matter to allow for the reasonable inference that his alcoholism
substantially limited one or more major life activities. (Docket No. 18 at 4-6); see
Rodriguez v. Verizon Telecom, No. 13-CV-6969 (PKC)(DCF), 2014 WL 6807834, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2014) (dismissal warranted where plaintiff failed to “provide[] any facts
showing how his drug addiction and alcoholism substantially limit[ed] one or more of his
2
major life activities”); Johnson v. New York Presbyterian Hosp., No. 00 CIV. 6776 (LAP),
2001 WL 829868, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2001) (fact that plaintiff had a history of
alcoholism alone insufficient to sufficiently state a disability within the meaning of the
ADA), aff'd, 55 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2003); see generally Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Accordingly, reconsideration of the July 24, 2015 Decision and Order is unwarranted.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No.
20) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2015
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?