Tamara Jordon vs. City of New York

Case Background

On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff  Tamara Jordon filed an ADA Retaliation lawsuit in the United States District Court, New York Southern (Foley Square) [Case number: 1:23cv4962]. Judge Denise L. Cote presided over this case.

Cause

A seasoned attorney and hearing officer, Tamara Jordan experienced persistent workplace discrimination at the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) in New York City. Jordan, who suffered from a debilitating kidney condition causing fatigue, cramping, and nerve pain, underwent surgery in December 2018 to remove a mass. Upon her return, she requested a medical accommodation to adjust her work hours. Although OATH initially granted her request, the environment changed when she resumed work in February 2019. Supervisors assigned her cases late in the day, forcing her to work overtime and disrupting her personal life.

During the early COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, OATH exposed Jordan to unsafe conditions, requiring her to interact closely with litigants and colleagues without providing personal protective equipment. Jordan repeatedly raised concerns about her vulnerability to the virus and requested remote work. While OATH granted remote work to 32 other hearing officers, it denied her request and placed her on unpaid leave from March to December 2020. This mistreatment escalated after Jordan filed an EEOC complaint in January 2021, as management scrutinized her work, increased her caseload, and continued assigning her complex cases without sufficient breaks.

Injuries

Tamara Jordan suffered profound physical, emotional, and professional injuries due to the discriminatory actions of her employer. The constant stress and increased workload exacerbated her kidney condition, resulting in extreme fatigue, sleep disruption, and frequent tension headaches. The denial of remote work during the pandemic, despite her heightened vulnerability, placed her at undue physical risk. OATH’s refusal to accommodate her condition and subsequent retaliation caused severe anxiety and emotional distress. Jordan experienced a loss of appetite, weight loss, and diminished overall health. Additionally, her professional dignity was undermined by condescending treatment from supervisors and unwarranted reprimands, which further eroded her confidence and well-being.

Damages

The actions of OATH caused significant financial and non-financial damages to Tamara Jordan. She lost nine months of income and benefits during her unpaid leave from March to December 2020, imposing a severe financial strain. The discrimination, retaliation, and unsafe working conditions inflicted emotional trauma that led to long-term psychological and physical health issues. Her reputation and career progression were harmed by the unfair scrutiny and disproportionate workload imposed upon her. OATH’s practices created a hostile work environment, depriving Jordan of opportunities to perform her duties under fair and equitable conditions, while the prolonged mistreatment irreparably harmed her professional standing.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Tamara Jordon
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Richard Javon Washington , Jr.
  • Defendant(s): City of New York
    • Counsel for Defendants: Amit Parab | Rodianna Katsaros | Traci Krasne

Claims

Tamara Jordan asserted several legal claims against the City of New York, OATH, and specific individuals in positions of authority in a ADA Retaliation case. She brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliation following her accommodation requests. She also pursued claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York City Human Rights Law for workplace discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. These claims highlighted the unlawful actions of increasing her workload, denying remote work options, and enforcing unreasonable deadlines. Jordan contended that OATH’s failure to address her concerns violated federal and state employment laws. She sought compensatory and punitive damages to address the financial losses, emotional distress, and harm to her professional reputation caused by the discriminatory practices. Additionally, she requested attorney fees and other relief to ensure accountability for the violations of her civil rights.

Defense

The City of New York, as the defendant, denied Tamara Jordan’s allegations of workplace discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The City argued that it had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions, including decisions related to accommodations and workload management. It asserted that Jordan’s claims under the New York City Human Rights Law were based on “petty slights and trivial inconveniences,” which did not constitute actionable discrimination. The defense contended that Jordan’s March 2020 accommodation request for remote work would have caused undue hardship and was therefore reasonably denied.

The City further maintained that certain claims were time-barred and that any alleged damages, such as back pay, were mitigated by Jordan’s own actions or inactions. The City emphasized that Jordan failed to meet the legal threshold for proving her claims and requested the dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety. The defense also highlighted the court’s prior dismissal of her other claims, leaving only the March 2020 retaliation allegation for resolution.

Jury Verdict

On December 4, 2024, the jury found that the plaintiff, Tamara Jordan, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the City of New York retaliated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Additionally, the jury determined that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the City retaliated against her in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). As a result, the jury ruled in favor of the defendant, concluding that there was no actionable retaliation under either law in a ADA Retaliation case.

Court Documents:

Documents Available for Purchase upon Request