2020 Robert Cascalenda V City of New York Summons Complaint 1

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2020 06:41 PM INDEX NO.
157807/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2020
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
x
ROBERT CASCALENDA Date Filed:
Index No.:
SUMMONS
Plaintiff,
-against- Plaintiff designates
New York County for

CITY OF NEW YORK trial based on
Defendant's Principle
Place of Business
Defendant'.
x
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your Answer, or if the complaint is not served with the smmmons, to serve a notice of
appearance on Plaintiff's attorney within twenty (20) days aner service of this mm=nns, exclusive
of the day of service, (or within thirty (30) days aner service is complete, if this summons is not
personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to answer,
judy,ument will be taken against you by default for the relief ac===4ed hereto.
Dated: New York, New York

September 23, 2020
/s/
John Scola
Law Office of John A. Scola, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
30 Broad Street, Suite 1424

New York, New York 10004
(917) 423-1445
DEFENDANT ADDRESS:
City of New York

100 Church Street
1 of 34
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2020 06:41 PM INDEX NO. 157807/2020
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
x
ROBERT CASCALENDA
Index No.:
VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
-against- JURY DEMAND
CITY OF NEW YORK
Defendant'
x
The Plaintiff, ROBERT CASCALENDA by his attorneys THE LAW OFFICE OF
JOHN A. SCOLA, PLLC., as and for his complaint against defendant CITY OF NEW YORK
"Defcñdañt"
(collectively referred to as and/or "CITY") for disability discrimination, hostile
work environment. constructive discharge, and retaliation pursuant to New York State
Executive § 296, and New York City Local Law §187 et al., New York Public Health Law as
well as multiple negligence claims against the Defcñdant, City of New York and for injunctive
relief Ordering that the New York City Police Department, cease their fool-11, discr -+ory
policies and allow police officers who are prescribed medical marijuana to use
lawfiilly
marijuana as prescribed.
INTRODUCTION
This is a civil rights action on behalf of Plaintiff ROBERT CASCALENDA (hereinanar
referred to as "Plaintiff") to vindicate his rights related to the disability discrimination, retaliation,
hostile work environment and ultimate constructive discharge from Defendant CITY OF NEW
YORK. More Plaintiff seeks compc-satory, emotional distress and punitive damages
specifically
against the D÷dant as well as attorney's fees related to the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights
2 of 34
secured by New York State Executive § 296, New York City Local Law §8-107 et al. and New
York Public Health Law §3369 Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief mandating An iñjüñction
-andadag that the New York City Police Department and CITY OF NEW YORK comply with
the Compassionate Care Act and thus allow New York City Police Officers who are lawfully
prescribed medical marijuana to use their medication withest discr - or

any tory retaliatory
actions from the CITY OF NEW YORK nor the NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Plaintiff was acñicd employment on the basis of his disability, forced to work in a hostile work
environment, constructively discharged and ra±=E=±c4 against for lawfully protected complaints
of said discrimination.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Plaintiff has filed suit with this Court within the applicable statute of F -ltdons period.
2. Plaintiff filed aNotice of Claim with the Defcñdant City ofNew York on February 4 , 2020.
3. Defendant failed to request a 50h ex±anon in this matter.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Civil Practice Law and
Rules Defcadmi CITY

("CPLR") § 301 because is a duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of New York exercising governmental authority
5. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR § 503 beeãüse Defendant, CITY, Principle Place of
BUSINESS is in New York County.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff ROBERT CASCALENDA is a Male hired by the Defcñdañt City ofNew York
in January 2008 as a police officer. He retired on September 17, 2020.
("NYC"
7. Defcñdañt City of New York or "City") is and was at all times relevant hereto
3 of 34
a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
goveiâ€” "=.- â€”

York ---:-l authority, Defendant is an employer subject to the New
exercising
York State Human Rights Law and New York Local Law. Def~~~~i of New
City City
Pl~intiR'
York was or is the employer of and others referenced herein. The Police
0- "NYPD"
=:-"-=:--= Department of the City of New York (hereinafter or
"Department"
), was and is a department, agency, bureau and/or subuivision of the
Bcf '-"~~4 City. The NYPD is and was at all times relevant hereto, a local gove.~cat
agency of New York City and was or is the employer of all the individual Plaintiff and
those referenced herein.
STATUTORY HISTORY
8. Signed into law in 2014, the Comp~ssio~ate Care Act New York Public Health Law $
3360 et. seq. (hereinafter referred to as "CCA") aViows New Yorkers to
access medical mariiimna
9. The act was implemented by the Depaiamcnt of Health (DOH) through re@i>~tio~s
â€” â€”
finalized in April 2015, and legal medical marijuana was av-aiiauac for sale b ~ ~
â€” „'
iii 2016. New York was the 24th state to legalize "=.'i ic~l mar
Jauucuy Aatuuu<
the regulatory framework was wiu~e~zy labeled as the most restrictive in the country at
the time.
10. In July 2015, the DOH authorized five vertically integrated Rcg.='.=:=d Organizations
â€”
â€” ca""
(ROs) to grow ====:-=: â€”: and ~:::=.â€”:=-sc medic~>-grade bis. Under their
ROs are aii~wcu to operate and/or ==-==- facilities and

authorizations, growing ==="-~g
a maximum of four dispensaries. Bi~p~nsaries sell

may only
"approved"
medical marijuana prouucts, which are those that the DOH has put through
4 of 34
rigorous for, other things, potency and chemical co-position,

laboratory testing among
and which may only be sold in specific dosage forms.
11. Patients seeking to use legal marijuana in New York must suffer from a dchilitanng or
life-threatening condition and a severe symptom associated with that condition, as
expressly e=merated in the CCA itself. In this respect, medical marijuana could only
be recomn-c=+d for 10 disease states in the early months of the program.
12. To participate in the medical marijuana program as a patient, a person is required to
enroll online through the DOH website. They must then be seen by a certified provider
and that provider must determine that the person suffers from a qualifying disease and
a qualifying symptom. The provider may then make a recommendation
for medical marijuana, which must be submitted to the DOH, along with other
"certified"
decü-station, in order to become a patient. The DOH then issues the
patient a registration card. Once a patient has a registration card, they may visit one of
a limited number of dispeñsaries, as described above, where they are cc=seled about
using medical marijuana by a licensed pharmacist. After completing the process,
patients can purchase to a 30-day of medicina As a general health

up supply matter,
insurance does not cover medical marijuana, and patient costs range from $100 to well
in excess of $1,000 per month.
13. The CCA specifically prohibits, as a rule, employment discrimiñation against disabled
persons.
14. Particularly, the CCA provides that certified patients "shall not be acñied any right or
privilege"
based on their legal marijuana use. Further, "being a certified patient shall be
disability"
deemed a under the human rights law, civil rights law, penal law
[as] having
5 of 34
and criminal procedure law, and anti-discrimination laws prohibit employers from
discriminating against disãbled persons. Employers are obligated to cñgage in the
interactive process with employees prescribed medical marijuana, and that
continued medical marijuana use may be a reasonable accom_ medation.
15. Caññabis is considered a controlled substance federally under the Controlled Substance
Act 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as "CSA") yet does not preempt
state law.
16. The CSA does not make it illegal to employ a marijuana user. Nor does it purport to
regulate employmcñt practices in any manner. It also contains a provision that explicitly
indicates that Congress did not intend for the CSA to preempt state law unless there is
a positive conflict between the CSA and state law (CCA) so that the two car=et
consistently stand together.
17. Where an employer has a drug policy preMbitmg the use of marijuana, even where
lawfully prescribed by a physiciañ, the employer would have a duty to engage in an
interactive process with the employee to determir.e whether there were equally
effective medical alternatives [to whose use would not be in violation of its
marijuana]
policy.
18. Further, where, a company's policy prohibiting any use of marijuana is applied against a
disãbled employee who is being treated with marijuana by a licensed physician for his
or his medical condition, the termination of the employee for violating that policy
effectively denies a disabled employee the opportunity of a reasonable accommodation,
and therefore is appropriately recognized as disability discrimination.
19. Failiñg a drug test is not a valid basis for terminating a legal medical marijuana user
6 of 34
unless the cmployer unsuccessfully scüght to obtain agr~--t with the employee on
an accommodation other than marijuana.
use."
20. A failed drug test is one that is the "result of illegal drug A person who has been
lawfhily prescribed medical marijuana in New York State who tests positive for
marijuana has not failed as a result of illegal drug use and is contrary to the legislãtive
intent of the CSA which classifies individuals prescribed medical marijuana as disabled.
21. On September 24, 2018, New York State Legislatme amended the CCA McKinney's
Public Health Law § 3360 (a) (7) (i) to include the use of medic4 marijuana is an
alternative to opioid use, substance use disorder to the list of infirmities that a
prescription for medical marijuana could be given.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
22. Plaintiff was born with a birth defect to his pancreas. This birth defect makes Plaintiff
prone to pancreatitis which is exacerbated when Plaintiff takes prescription drugs.
23. Plaintiff joined the New York City Police Department as a Police Officer in January
2008.
24. While working as a member of the School Safety Task Force in Queens County, New
York, Plaintiff sprained his shoulder in 2010.
25. In 2010, Plaintiff further fractured his shin bone in each of his legs while wrestling
with a student who assãü1ted a teacher and subsequently resisted arrest.
26. On or around late 2011/early 2012, Plaintiff began taking medication for anxiety.
Plaintiff was prescribed Soloff and Ambien to help him deal with his anxiety.
27. In 2012, Plaintiff was involved in a Line of Duty car accident while he was assigned
678"
to the Precinct where the vehicle he was in T-boned another vehicle, iñjuriñg
7 of 34
Plaintiff's his neck and back.
28. In June Plaintiff was diagnosed with disorder and chronic ins~nnia
2014, anxiety
29. On or around June 2015, Plaintiff tore his anterior crucial ligament while assigned to
606
Precinct. This injury was considered non Line of Duty by the NYPD.
30. Followiñg Plaintiffs multiple Line of Duty injuries he was prescribed various opioids
to help manage his chronic pain.
31. Plaintiff has been prescribed Percocet, OxyContin, Hydrocedone, Tmmadol, and
Morphine to help manage his chronic pain.
32. As a result of the opioids that Plaintiff was prescribed, in addition to the anxiety and
sleeping medication, Plaintiff began having regular bouts of pancreatitis starting in
2016. Plaintiff would ultimately have three (3) separate re-occurrences of pañcreatitis.
33. In October 2017, Plaintiff was diagnosed with depression.
34. Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty on November 2018 which in±·6d haviñg his
gun and shield removed.
35. In December 2018, Plaintiff was given antibiotics for Lyme Disease but was not
officially diagnosed due to the invasiveñcss of the diagnostic test. Plaintiff was
diagnosed at this time with Chronic Pain.
36. In October Plaintiff was hosphh -1 where he remir.cd for several days in a
2019,
coma. At this time, doctors were able to test Plaintiff for Lyme Disease through a spinal
tap which confirmed he had Lyme Disease. Plaintiff was also diagnosed with
fibromyalgia.
37. Following this hospitalization, Plaintiff spoke with his private doctor who informed
8 of 34
him that due to his chronic pain and the number of opioids and other medications he
was prescribed, Plaintiff was at serious risk for overdose and death as a result of the
volume of medicine he was prescribed and his birth defect which made of
processing
prescription medication particularly dangerous.
38. Plaintiff's private doctor further stated that Plaintiff needed to immediardy consider
lessening the amount of prescription medication that he takes as it could kill him.
39. PlaintifPs private doctor spoke to him about and ultimately prescribed Plaintiff
medical marijuana as a way to ween Plaintiff off the numerous opioids he was
prescribed and help combat his Chronic Pain.
40. Plaintiff, despite a lawful prescription to use medical marijuana, did not fill his
having
prescription at that time and contimied taking his other prescribed medication despite
the risk that these medications could be fatal to Plaintiff
41. Between February 2019 and May 2019, Plaintiff was having severe issues with his
anxiety and insomnia.
42. Plaintiff was referred to Psych Services within the NYPD for psychiatric evaluation
At this evalration Plaintiff was asked what religion he was. He responded that he is
Catholic. Plaintiff informed the doctor at Psych Services that he was fascinated by
religion and even had read Satanic Bibles out of curiosity.
43. Psych Services did not like these responses and sent Plaintiff to the Psychiatrist
hospital despite no outward mar.ifestations of homicidal nor s inidal ideations

having
at that time.
44. Plaintiff went to the Psychiatric hospital under survd!!== a for twelve hours but
(12)
9 of 34
was released the following morning as he was not a threat to himself or others.
45. the night in the hospital also in Plaintiff had a doctor's

Following May 2019,
appchh-ñt at the Medical Division with District Surgeon Dr. Joseph Hedderman.
46. At this appointment, Dr. Hedderman ec.====ted on the numcras opioid prescriptions
that Plaintiff was prescribed and stated that this combination of medication could be
fatal to Plaintiff.
47. Plaintiff explained that he was aware of this as he was informed of the
previously
potential of his prescription combination and that his private doctor

fatality drug
suggested that he take and ultimately prescribed him medical marijuana.
48. Dr. Hedderman stressed to Plaintiff the importance of Plaintiff weaning himself off of
the fatal opioid combi=.ti.,n that he was and approved Plaintiff's

potentially taking
medical marijuana which would provide him with the same pain relief and would be
significantly less dangerous than the high dosage of opioids he was currently taking.
49. Dr. Hedderman proceeded to contimm to advise Plaintiff to work to wean himself
try
off of the opioids.
50. At this time, Plaintiff had obtaiñcd the reasonable accommodation to allow him to use
medical marijuana from the NYPD's Medical Division.
51. Immediatdy following the doctor's appoi-hent with Dr. Hedderman in which
Plaintiff was given approval to used medical marijuana in an effort to save his life, the
NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau (hereinafter referred to as "IAB") began following
and surveilling Plaintiff.
"random"
52. Plaintiff was given a drug test on September 5, 2019 by a sergeant from IAB
10 of 34
where he tested positive for marijuana
53. At this time Plaintiff, was using his prescribed marijuana and ananpting to wean
himself off of Tramadol, Morphine and Gabapentin.
54. Following the drug test, Plaintiff was again hospitalived for pancreatitis due to stress
and pill usage, on September 11, 2020. Plaintiff remained in the hospital until
September 15, 2020.
55. After being releãsed from the hospital, Plaintiff was informed by IAB that he was being
suspaded for thirty (30) days without pay as a result of his positive drug test for
marijuana.
56. Plaintiff attempted to explain that he had been allowed to use his marijuana as it was
legally prescribed and approved by Dr. Hedderman at the NYPD's Medical Division.
57. Plaintiff proceeded to show the IAB Sergeant his prescription card.
58. Plaintiff's sister, a fellow police officer, was told by IAB that the "job would never
marijuana."
approve of an officer using
"failed" "random"
59. Plaintiff also his drug test for morphine which was given to him in
the hospital and other Tramadel which were also prescribed to him but the NYPD took
no action related to that positive test.
60. IAB proceeded to take Plaintiff into overnight where he was forced to remain
custody
at IAB's office on IIndson Street overnight while he was harassed by several officers
within IAB.
61. Plaintiff while in the of IAB began and Plaintiff

custody belinling harassing
62. Plaintiff was called a hypochondriac and was accused of faking his illnesses. Plaintiff
11 of 34
was further made fun of by the members of service present in IAB for the duration of
the night. Plaintiff was also bizarrely asked if he was dating any women who had
AIDS. This harassment occurred in front of an IAB sergeant who took no steps to
intervene.
63. Further, while Plaintiff was using the bathroom where he was being held on Hudson
Street. While in the process of using the bathroom an officer from IAB epened the
restroom door. The re==4-4--g officers in the office (approximately 5) began poinhg
and laughiñg at Plaintiff who was sitting on the toilet.
64. Fellowing the üñlawfhl confinement of Plaintiff, he was taken to Elmhurst Hospital.
65. Plaintiff was not suspcñded at this time and was allowed to use medical marijuana
for approximately the next month.
NYPD'
66. Plaintiff's identification was taken at this time which c9=ed Plaintiff difficulty
entering any NYPD facility.
67. During this time, Plaintiff would have regular panic attacks as a result of IAB's
constant hara t These a*acks occurred two or three times

approximately (2) (3)
a week.
68. Plaintiff continued medical marijuana which he cc-_:-dcated to the

using regularly
Medical Division during his mandated appointnents.
69. Plaintiff continued to take Amlodipine, Sertraline and Ambien. Further, Plaintiff was
the medical marijuana in an effort to wean him off if Tramadel and Gabapentin.
using
70. Plaintiff was told his private doctor that his use of Gabapcñtin coupled with the
by
s±---
stress --; from work related to his usage of medical marijuana was causing his
12 of 34
bouts with pancreatitis and that he needed to cease using Gabapcñtiñ.
"random"
71. Plaintiff was again subjected to a test on October 29, 2019. Plaintiff
drug
"failed"
the drug test for medical marijuana.
72. the positive test, IAB ordered Plaintiff to medical

Following drug stop using
marijuana.
73. Plaintiff continued having panic attacks as a result of IAB's constant harassment.
74. The followiñg day, Plaintiff, on October 30, 2019, while having a panic attack due to
IAB's constant harassment and interference, had suffered a severe asthms attack.
75. Plaintiff called 911 where he cc-.-.icated that he was suical and in need of
assistance.
76. Multiple ambulsñces and dozens of NYPD patrol vchicles responded to the scene to
assist Plaintiff.
77. Plaintiff was then taken to Richmond University Hospital where he was placed on a
ventilator as he could no longer breathe on his own.
78. Plaintiff remained in a coma for seven days which was brought on due to the stress
(7)
related to the addinonal drug tests and orders by IAB.
79. While in a coma, Plaintiff was handcuffed to his hospital bed for the first three days
(3)
he was in the hospital.
80. Plaintiff was intabated at the hospital as a result of vomiting which caused aspiration
in his lungs which ultima±ely lead to pneumonla
81. While in the hospital a detective from IAB called Plaintiff's sister, a NYPD police
officer, to speak about Plaintiff's health status. The Detective told Plaintiff's sister that
13 of 34
brother."
"all we can do is pray for your
82. Prior to his discharge Plaintiff was diagnosed as Bi-Polar.
83. Plaintiff remained in the hospital from October 30, 2019 until November 21, 2019
when he was discharged.
84. On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff was informed IAB that he was suspcñded
by being
for thirty (30) days as a result of his positive drug test for marijuana.
85. Plaintiff was forced to turn over his NYPD identification card.
86. Upon from suspension on December 23, 2019, Plaintiff was restored to duty
retaming
and transferred to the Quartermaster Unit in Queens.
87. At this time in a GO15 it was suggested to Plaintiff IAB that if he wanted to
by stay
out of trouble he would have to change his meds.
88. Plaintiff interpreted this st2±cment as he could out of trouble if he went back on
stay
opioids.
89. This assignment required Plaintiff to travel to work which is a comman form of
therapy."
retaliation within the NYPD referred to as "highway
90. In January, 2020 Plaintiff suffered an asth-a attack as a result of the stress he was
enduring at the time.
91. Plaintiff continued haviñg panic attacks throughout this time.
92. Plaintiff was being harassed by a Lieutenant in the Quartermaster Unit.
93. Plaintiff was stuck in a cold and room which was meant to exacerbate his
dusty
debilitating conditions.
14 of 34
94. More specifically, the cold room was particularly painful due to his chronic pain
syndrome and fibromyalgia. The dust caused Plaintiff to have trouble breathing.
95. The treatmcat got so bad that a family friend of Plaintiff who is an attorney, contacted
IAB and made a complaint about the torture Plaintiff was being subjected to.
96. Plaintiff was subsequently yelled at by the Lic=+-=nt for contacting IAB.
97. Plaintiff's work conditions did not improve.
98. Plaintiff reported the condinons to Dr. Harrison in the Medical Division but no
corrective action was taken.
"randomly"
99. Two days after filing a complaint with IAB, Plaintiff was again drug tested
by IAB causing Plaintiff more anxiety.
100. IAB continued to surveille Plaintiff this time.

during
101. The NYPD would regularly place an üñmarked patrol cars outside of Plaintiff's
house for months on end.
102. Plaintiff viewed this as threatening and caused him great emononal unrest.
103. The unmarked patrol cars were so obvious that Plaintiff's neighbor notice and
informed Plaintiff of the constant surveillance.
104. The emenonal distress camed by the Dafandant's surveillañcc and unvei"‰=css
to accommnanta Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to have a series of psychiatric episodes
where he would have severe panic attacks.
105. Defendan+ knew about Plaintiff's mental health diagnoses but continued to
discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff his mental health to deteriorate.

causing
106. this time Plaintiff would ask the NYPD's Medical Division to
During repeatedly
15 of 34
assist him yet they refused.
107. Upon information and belief, IAB informed the Medical Division not to assist
Plaintiff.
108. Plaintiff, in fear of the retalis±icñ of the Defendant and reali ing that he would
not be given the reasonable acen-madation to allow him to continue working, put in
his retirement papers for disability pension in January 2020 related to his physical
diagnoses.
109. In February 2020, in fear of the retaliatian of the D4ndant and that he
realizing
would not be given the reasonable accommodation to allow him to continue working,
put in his retirement papers for psychelegical disability pension.
110. Plaintiff's mental health continued to deteriorate during this time. Plaintiff was
from inenmnia and panic attacks as a result of the Defcñdant's antiane

suffering
"vest"
111. In February 2020, Plaintiff was apprc.ached by IAB who asked him to out
of the department. It was clear that Plaintiff was about to be ter-sted if he didn't
retire.
112. In March 2020, Plaintiff had a hearing with the NYPD's Medical Board related
to his disability pension.
113. Plaintiff was approved for disability pension the same day he went before the
Medical Board.
114. the decision of the Medical Board, IAB continued to investigate

Following
Plaintiff, exacerbating his conditions.
115. Plaintiff was further enntim'ansly harassed regarding his disability while
16 of 34
stationed at the Quartermaster Unit.
116. Plaintiff was forced to work in a envirc-===t which

particularly dusty
exaccrbated his asthma and led to addinonal difficulty with breathing while at work.
117. Plaintiff's sister repeatedly reached out to the NYPD to seek assistance for
Plaintiff. When she called PAPPA (an anoirymous NYPD division to speak with police
officers regarding mental health and drug use), the Employee Assistance Unit and the
Mobil Critical Response Units, she was told that there was nothing that they could do.
118. Plaintiff's last day of work with the NYPD was September 17, 2020 where he
officially went out on disability pension.
119. Plaintiff would have remained an NYPD officer if he was granted the reasonable
accommodation allowing him to use his prescribed medical marijuana.
120. Plaintiff is disabled under New York State and City law.
121. Defcñdant failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation of using
medical marijuana to treat his disabilities.
122. Defendant arbitrarily rejected Plaintiff's request for a reasonable acenmmadadan
without further inquiry.
123. Defa=hr± failed to duly consider Plaintiff's reasonable acen-madanan
124. Defendant failed to engage in interactions with plaintiff nor deliberated as to
Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation request to determine its viability.
125. D f =d==+ failed to engage in a good faith interactive process that assessed the
needs of the disabled Plaintiff and the rease-=abicñess of his annamm- 32 an
126. Plaintiff could have performed the essential fi1nedons as a police officer with
17 of 34
acce-··=eaden as the Defcñdant specifically told Plaintiff that he could continue to
perform his work with the NYPD if he went back on epioids.
127. The CITY OF NEW YORK would not lose a federal contract or Ps±±g if they
were to comply with the CCA.
COUNT I
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK
STATE EXECUTIVE LAW 4 296
128. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all paragraphs contained herein by
reference to Count I of this complaint.
129. Plaintiff alleges that New York State Executive Law §296, preMbits
discrimination, harassment, and disparate treatment on the basis of disability in
employment.
130. Plaintiff performed his job duties satisfactorily which is reflected in Plaintiffs
stellar performance evalüadens. Nevertheless, Defedant denied Plaintiff benefits of
employment, inch=¾g all favorable conditions and emoluments thereof because of
Plaintiff's disability, created a hostile work envircn=-nt and suffered a constructive
discharge by the conduct of Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK and those within its
and without non-discr

- --
basis thereof. The wrongful conduct was
employ any ry
condoned by the Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK.
131. Defendant's actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an iñfercñce
of discrimination.
132. The direct and proximate cause of Defendant's recklessness and negligence,
Plaintiff lost his job, suffered lost past and future wages, lost other valuable benefits and
emoluments of employment, hurt his credit rating, lost career and business
18 of 34
opportunities, suffered severe damage to his good name and reputation, and endured
severe emotional pain and trauma, all to his detriment.
133. Plaintiff alleges defendant's CITY OF NEW YORK, engaged in various unlav 1
employment actions agaiñst Plaintiff based on his disability.
134. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the uñ1av
employment practices of defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff iñcurred
attorneys'
significant legal costs, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, fees,
emotional distress, and ds-sge to his personal and professional reputation in an
amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT II
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
STATE EXECUTIVE LAW §_296
reference to Count II of this complaint.
136. Plaintiff alleges that New York State Executive Law §296, prohibits
discrimination; harassment, and disparate trea+mant on the basis of disability in
employment.
137. Plaintiff performed his job duties satisfactorily which is reflected in Plaintiff's
stellar performance evalüatieñs. Defcñdañt denied Plaintiff benefits of

Nevertheless,
employmcñt, including all favorable conditions and cmcSme=ts thereof because of
Plaintiff's disâbility, created a hostile work environment and suffered a constractive
discharge by the conduct of Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK and without any
non-
discr
- basis thereof. The wrongful conduct was condoned the Defcñdañt
=ª,nf by
19 of 34
CITY OF NEW YORK.
of discrimination.
139. Deh ==± subjected Plaintiff to a adverse and hostile work

materially
environm=± him to ridicule, withõüt intervention to

by subjecting supervisory
discri=4==‰= and retaliation based on his disability.
140. The actions of the Defendant towards Plaintiff were severe and pervasive.
142. Plaintiff alleges defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, engaged in various unlav 1
employment actions against Plaintiff based on his disability.
143. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the unlav
employment practices a subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile work environm=±

includi-g
of defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff iñcurred significant legal costs, back
attorneys'
pay, front pay, compensatory damages, fees, emotional distress, and
damage to his personal and professional reputation in an amount to be determined at
trial.
COUNT III
RETALIATION
STATE EXECUTIVE LAW §_296
20 of 34
reference to Count III of this complaint.
145. Plaintiff alleges that New York State Executive Law §296, makes it unlawful to
deny employmcñt and benefits therciñ in retaliation for Plaintiff cñgaging in lavedily
protected activity.
146. Plaintiff cñgaged in protected activity when he complained of disability
discrimination and requested a reasonable accommodation therefrom.
147. Plaintiff was retaliated against by the Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, as a
result of his engagement in protected activity.
148. Defendant's actions were taken under circumstañces giving rise to an iñfercñce
of retaliation.
Plaintiff lost his job in that he was constructively discharged, suffered lost past and
future wages, lost other valuable benefits and emoluments of employment, hurt his
credit rating, lost career and business opportunities, suffered severe damage to his good
name and reputation, and endured severe emotional pain and trauma, all to his
detriment.
150. Plaintiff alleges defedant CITY OF NEW YORK cñgaged in various unlawful
employmcñt actions against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff's lav protected

lly
complaints.
151. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the unlavedl
employmeñt practices of defendant CITY OF NEW YORK Plaintiff iñcurred
attorneys'
significant legal costs, back pay, front pay, compcñsatory damages, fees,
emotional distress, and damage to his personal and professional reputation in an
21 of 34
amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT IV
IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CITY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE $ 8-107
152. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all paragraphs contaiñcd herein by
reference to Count IV of this complaint.
153. Plaintiff alleges that New York City M=4=4:kative Code § 8-107, makes it
unlawful to deny employmcñt on the basis of his disability.
stellar performance evaluations. Nevertheless, Defcñdant denied Plaintiff benefits of
employment, inolüding all favorable conditions and cmelsments thereof because of
Plaintiff's created a hostile work envirn t and suffered a constructive

disâbility,
discharge by the conduct of Defedant CITY OF NEW YORK. The wrongful conduct
was condoned by the Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK.
of discrimination.
157. Plaintiff alleges defendant CITY OF NEW YORK eñgaged in various unlawful
employment actions against Plaintiff based on his disability.
158. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the unlavvfal
22 of 34
employment practices of defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff iñcurred
significant legal costs, back pay, front pay, compcñsatory damages, punitive ±=:ps,
attorneys'
fees, emedonal distress, and damage to his personal and professional
reputation in an amount to be determiñcd at trial.
COUNT V
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE $ 8-107
159. Plaintiff re-alicges and incorporates all paragraphs cer±=4=cd herein by
reference to Count V of this complaint.
160. Plaintiff alleges that New York

P- -
shtive Code makes it
City § 8-107,
unla-
GI to deny employment on the basis of his disability.
161. Plaintiff performed his job duties sansfactõrily which is reflected in Plaintiffs
stellar performance evaluations. Nevertheless, Defendant daded Plaintiff benefits of
employment, incliiding all favorable conditions and emelumcats thereof because of
PlaintifPs disability, created a hostile work environmcat and suffered a constractive
discharge by the conduct of Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK and without any
non-
discrbi-tory basis thereof. The wrongful conduct was condoned by the Defcñdant
CITY OF NEW YORK.
162. Defendant's actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference
of discrimination.
163. Defcñdañt subjected Plaintiff to a materially adverse and hostile work
envireñ-cut by subjecting him, day after day, month after month, without supervisory
intericñtion to discrimination and retaliation based his disability.
23 of 34
164. The actions of the Defendant towards Plaintiff were severe and pervasive.
166. Plaintiff alleges defendant CITY OF NEW YORK engaged in various unlawfal
employ:ncñt actions against Plaintiff based on his disability.
167. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the üñ1avdul
employment Plaintiff to a hostile work environment of

practices, includiñg subjecting
defcñdant CITY OF NEW YORK Plaintiff incurred significant legal costs, back pay,
attorneys'
front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, fees, emotional
distress, and damage to his personal and professional reputation in an amount to be
determined at trial.
COUNT VI
RETALIATION
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107
reference to Count VI of this complaint.
169. Plaintiff alleges that New York City M-2-:±ative Code § 8-107, makes it
unlawful to deny employment in retaliation for Plaintiff cñgagi-g in protected activity.
170. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she complained of discrimination
and requested a reasonable accommodation related to his disability.
171. Plaintiff was retMiat. d against by the Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, as a
24 of 34
result of his engagement in protected activity.
172. Defendant's actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an infcrcñce
of retaliation.
Plaintiff lost his job in that he was constructively discharged, suffered lost past and
future wages, lost other valuable benefits and emoluments of employment, hurt his
credit rating, lost career and business opportunities, suffered severe damage to his good
name and reputation, and endured severe emotional pain and trauma, all to his
detriment.
174. Plaintiff alleges def-dant CITY OF NEW YORK engaged in various unlav
employment actions against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff's lav á1ly protected
complaints.
175. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the unlav#á1
employment practices of defendant CITY OF NEW YORK Plaintiff incurred
significant legal costs, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys'
fees, emetiensi distress, and damage to his personal and professional
reputation in an amount to be actcrmiñcd at trial.
COUNT VII
DISABILITY DISRIMINATION
STRICT LIABILITY IN VIOLATION OF
NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107(13)(b)
reference to Count VII of this complaint.
177. Plaintiff alleges that New York City Ad=4=4strative Code § 8-107 (13) (b), makes
a Defcñdsñt strictly liable for the discr ===½ry acts of managers and supervisors
25 of 34
against a subordinate employee, such as the Plaintiff herein.
178. Plaintiff was subjected to repeated disability discrimination following the lawful
complaints made by Plaintiff regarding his reasonable accammadation and disability.
179. The D f =d==+ was aware of the actions of managers and supervisors, including
but failed to take corrective remedial action which forced Plaintiff to be subjccted to
future discrimination.
180. The Drfr=d==t failed to exercise reamnable diligence to prevent such
discriminatory conduct.
stellar performance evaluations. Defendant a ird Plaintiff benefits of

Nevertheless,
employ;nent, including all favorable conditions and eme½-=ts thereof because of
Plaintiff's disâbility, created a hostile work envirc==± and suffered a constructive
discharge by the conduct of Dafandant CITY OF NEW YORK and without any
non-
discrim4=a+~y basis thereof. The wrongful conduct was condoned by the Defendant
CITY OF NEW YORK.
182. Defendant's actions were taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference
of discrimination.
184. Plaintiff alleges defendant CITY OF NEW YORK engaged in various unlawful
26 of 34
employment actions against Plaintiff based on his disabil ity.
185. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the üñ1awfiü
employment practices of defcñdañt CITY OF NEW YORK Plaintiff incurred
attorneys'
fees, emedonal distress, and damage to his personal and professional
reputadon in an amount to be determined at trial.
186. As a result of Defendant's willflu actions they are strictly liable to Plaintiff for
their actions.
COUNT VIII
RETALIATION
STRICT LIABILITY IN VIOLATION OF
NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 6 8-107(13)(b)
reference to Count VIII of this complaint.
188. Plaintiff alleges that New York City Admbistrative Code § 8-107 (13) (b), makes
a Defeñdañt strictly liable for the acts of msñagers and supervisors against a subordinate
employee, such as the Plaintiff herein.
189. Plaintiff was subjected to repeated retalistory acts following the lawful
complaints made by Plaintiff regarding disability discrimination
190. The Defendañt was aware of the actions of massgers and supervisors but failed
to take corrective remedial action which forced Plaintiff to be subjected to future
retaliation.
191. The Def:ñdant failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent such ret4
tory
conduct.
192. Plaintiff performed his job duties satisfactc.rily which is reflected in Plaintiff's
27 of 34
stellar performance evaluations. Nevertheless, Defendant denied Plaintiff benefits of
empicyment, indiidir.g all favorable conditions and emahments thereof because of
Plaintiff's disability, created a hostile work environment and suffered a constructive
discharge by the conduct of Defcñdant CITY OF NEW YORK withest any

non-
discr½ine±ory basis thereof. The wrongful conduct was condoned by the Defcñdant
CITY OF NEW YORK.
193. Dha==+'s actions were taken under circ=ñstseces giving rise to an inference
of retaliation.
195. Plaintiff alleges defendant CITY OF NEW YORK engaged in varicas üñlawful
employment actions against Plaintiff in retaliation for his lawfúlly protected cc.mplaints
of discrimination and ress0ñable accommodation request.

disability
196. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the üñ1avvfel
employment practices of dcfcñdant CITY OF NEW YORK Plaintiff incurred
attorneys'
fees, emotional distress, and damage to his personal and professional
reputation in an amount to be determined at trial.
197. As a result of Defedant's willful actions they are strictly liable to Plaintiff for
their actions.
28 of 34
COUNT XI
NEGLIGENT HIRING
198. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all paragraphs contair.ed herein by
reference to Count IX of this complaint.
199. Plaintiff alleges defendant CITY OF NEW YORK through its agents deprived
him of constitutional and rights and ung-lified

statutory by hiring premeting
individuals within their employ.
200. Plaintiff alleges defendant CITY OF NEW YORK through its agent's decision
to hire and promote individuals who were not qualified and others within their employ
reflects a deliberate indifference to the risk that a violation of a constitutional or
statutory right would follow.
201. Plaintiff alleges because Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK through its agents
decided to hire and promote hire and promote iñdividuals who were not qualified and
others within their employ he sustained constitutional and statutory injuries.
COUNT X
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN
202. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all paragraphs cen+ained herein by
reference to Count X of this complaint.
203. Plaintiff alleges defeñdañt CITY OF NEW YORK through its agents knows to
a moral certaiñty that its employees will confront a given situation.
204. Plaintiff alleges the situation presents the employee with a difficult choice of
the sort either that traiñiñg will make less difficult or that there is a history of
employees the situation

mishandling
205. Plaintiff alleges mic'-=ñdling those situations will frequently cause the
deprivation of a citizen's constitutional rights.
29 of 34
206. Plaintiff alleges because defendant CITY OF NEW YORK through its agents
failure to train its employees discriminarian and retaliation in the

regarding disability
workplace he sustaiñcd conctitutional and statutory injuries.
COUNT XI
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO SUPERVISE
207. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all paragraphs cent =cd herein by
reference to Count XI of this complaiñt.
208. Plaintiff alleges Ddandant CITY OF NEW YORK through its agents knows to
a moral certainty that its employees will confront a given situation.
209. Plaintiff alleges the situation presents the employee with a difficult choice of
the sort either that t-ai-ing will make less difficult or that there is a history of
employees the situation

mishañdling
210. Plaintiff alleges n-ish=naing those situations will frequently cause the
deprivation of a citizen's constitutional rights.
211. DE =a=n+ failed to properly supervise its employees causing Plaintiff to suffer
significant ecenern_4c and psychological injuries.
212. Plaintiff allcges because Defedant THE CITY OF NEW YORK through its
agents failure to supervise its employees he sustained constitutional and statutory
injuries.
COUNT XII
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DISCIPLINE
213. Plaintiff re-alicgcs and incorporates all paragraphs contained herein by
reference to Count XII of this complaint.
214. Plaintiff alleges defedant THE CITY OF NEW YORK through its agents
30 of 34
deprived him of con«+Ntional and statutory rights by failing to discipline those within
their employ.
215. Plaintiff alleges Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK through its agent's
failure to discipline those within its employ reflects a deliberate indifference to the risk
that a violation of a constitutional or statutory right would follow.
216. Plaintiff alleges because of the inactian of Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK
he :sustaiñed constitutional and injuries.

statutory
COUNT XIH
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK HEALTH LAW 63369
reference to Count XIII of this complaint.
218. New York Health Law §3369 makes it unlawful to for an employer to
"disability"
discri-hste against a certified patient shall be deemed to be having a
under article fifteen of the executive law (h==rights law), section forty-c of the civil
rights law, sections 240.00, 485.00, and 485.05 of the penal law, and section 200.50 of
the criminal procedure law.
219. Plaintiff was a certified patient who was disabled.
220. Plaintiff was discr

- d and retalisted against as a result of being a certified
Patient.
221. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful
employment practices of defendant CITY OF NEW YORK Plaintiff iñcurred
significant legal costs, back pay, front pay, compc-1satory damages, punitive d-=:gcs,
attorneys'
fees, emotional distress, and damage to his personal and professional
31 of 34
reputation in an amount to be determined at trial.
.HTRY TRIAL
222. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues in this action that are so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court:
a. An injüñcdon mandating that the New York City Police Department and CITY
OF NEW YORK comply with the Compassionate Care Act and thus allow New
York Police Officers who are prescribed medical marijuana to use

City lavvfally
their medication without any discrimi==tery or retalisteq actions from the CITY
OF NEW YORK nor the NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT;
b. Award compensatory damages for the back pay, front pay, pain, suffering,
En-
emenonal distress, loss of dignity, 'inan, and damages to reputation and
liveH½a cadured Plaintiff and all other damages afforded to Plaintiff

by by
statute or otherwise in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. Award Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount to be dctcrmined at trial New
York City Human Rights Law Admi=ictative Code §8-502(a);
d. Find Defendant strictly liable pursuant to New York City Human Rights Law
Administrative Code §8-107(13)(b);
attorneys'
e. Award Plaintiff costs for this action and reasonably fees, as provided
for in New York City Human Rights Law Administrative Code §8-502 (f);
f. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be required in the interest of
justice.
32 of 34
Dated: September 23, 2020
New York, NY
Respectfully submitted,
By:____Is/
John Scola
Law Office of John A. Scola, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Cascalenda
30 Broad Street Suite 1424

(917) 423-1445
jscola@johnscolã1aw.com
33 of 34
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
I, the undersigned, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York, under
penalties of perjury do affirm;
That I am the attorney of record for the plaintiff in the within matter and make this affirmation in
accordance with CPLR 3020. I have read the within SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
and know the centents thereof to be true to your affirmant's own knowledge, with the exception
of those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief. Your affirmant bases his
belief regarding those matters upon the contents of the file and conversation with witnesses and
the claimant.
This verification is made by your affirmant and not by the chi-snt for the following reason; The
d:4=ssts resides in a different County than where your affirmant mai=+2i=s an office.
Dated: New York, New York

September 23, 2020
/s/
JOHN SCOLA
34 of 34

2020 Robert Cascalenda V City of New York Summons Complaint 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Robert Cascalenda V City of New York Summons Complaint 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Robert Cascalenda V City of New York Summons Complaint 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the plaintiff alleging in this case?

What is the plaintiff alleging in this case?

What laws is the plaintiff citing in their claims?

What laws is the plaintiff citing in their claims?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2020 06:41 PM INDEX NO.

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

-against- Plaintiff designates

New York County for

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

Dated: New York, New York

30 Broad Street, Suite 1424

City of New York

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

-against- JURY DEMAND

CITY OF NEW YORK

This is a civil rights action on behalf of Plaintiff ROBERT CASCALENDA (hereinanar

prescribed medical marijuana to use their medication withest discr - or

3. Defendant failed to request a 50h ex±anon in this matter.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Rules Defcadmi CITY

the laws of the State of New York exercising governmental authority

BUSINESS is in New York County.

in January 2008 as a police officer. He retired on September 17, 2020.

goveiâ€” "=.- â€”

those referenced herein.

3360 et. seq. (hereinafter referred to as "CCA") aViows New Yorkers to

access medical mariiimna

ROs are aii~wcu to operate and/or ==-==- facilities and

a maximum of four dispensaries. Bi~p~nsaries sell

rigorous for, other things, potency and chemical co-position,

and which may only be sold in specific dosage forms.

life-threatening condition and a severe symptom associated with that condition, as

be recomn-c=+d for 10 disease states in the early months of the program.

12. To participate in the medical marijuana program as a patient, a person is required to

a qualifying symptom. The provider may then make a recommendation

using medical marijuana by a licensed pharmacist. After completing the process,

patients can purchase to a 30-day of medicina As a general health

in excess of $1,000 per month.

discriminating against disãbled persons. Employers are obligated to cñgage in the

interactive process with employees prescribed medical marijuana, and that

continued medical marijuana use may be a reasonable accom_ medation.

consistently stand together.

lawfully prescribed by a physiciañ, the employer would have a duty to engage in an

effectively denies a disabled employee the opportunity of a reasonable accommodation,

and therefore is appropriately recognized as disability discrimination.

an accommodation other than marijuana.

prescription for medical marijuana could be given.

prone to pancreatitis which is exacerbated when Plaintiff takes prescription drugs.

York, Plaintiff sprained his shoulder in 2010.

with a student who assãü1ted a teacher and subsequently resisted arrest.

Plaintiff's his neck and back.

to help manage his chronic pain.

Morphine to help manage his chronic pain.

sleeping medication, Plaintiff began having regular bouts of pancreatitis starting in

33. In October 2017, Plaintiff was diagnosed with depression.

gun and shield removed.

diagnosed at this time with Chronic Pain.

prescription medication particularly dangerous.

prescribed and help combat his Chronic Pain.