|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Former Custodian Charges Clarkstown With Pretextual Termination After MS Disclosure
Paul Youngelson, a custodian employed by the Town of Clarkstown, filed suit in federal court charging the town, his direct supervisor, and a department head and a deputy department head with discrimination based on the town’s failure to accommodate his medical disability and the subsequent termination of his employment.
According to the complaint, Youngelson was employed as a custodian from March of 2024 until his termination in March of 2025. He suffered from Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for more than 15 years and has been under medical care for his condition since 2009.
The MS causes stiffness, balance instability, dizziness, temperature sensitivity, heaviness in his legs, and bowel incontinence. His MS limits his ability to lift heavy items, and he requires frequent breaks.
Youngelson says despite his disability he could still perform the essential functions of his job as a custodian if provided with reasonable accommodation. Youngelson says he had received satisfactory performance evaluations from the town, and had no disciplinary history prior to disclosing his disability.
Both federal and state law require employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. The law also protects disabled employees from adverse employment actions, including termination based on a disability or a request for an accommodation.
According to the complaint, in November 2025, Youngelson disclosed to his immediate supervisor that he had MS and asked for accommodation due to the difficulty he was having performing certain physically strenuous tasks at the Pascack Community Center. Youngelson said his supervisor responded with a threat of termination.
The day after his disclosure, he was issued a written disciplinary warning, accusing him of neglecting his assigned tasks and using his personal phone in a back room.
In response, Youngelson provided a letter from his treating physician confirming his diagnosis, and his need for specific accommodations. In response, he was issued a second written warning for neglect of duty.
In February, Youngelson was issued a third written warning for an “unauthorized departure from work” a few days earlier. The court complaint charges that the write-up was “pretextual” and “part of an escalating campaign of retaliation.”
After that, Youngelson was reassigned to early morning shifts, Sundays through Thursdays, at the Clarkstown Police Department and the Congers Community Center that he said “was issued without any accommodation analysis” and “imposed a more burdensome schedule.”
On March 3 he was suspended. On March 14 he was terminated. Youngelson describes a “continuous and escalating pattern of discrimination and retaliation directly caused by his disclosure of his disability and his request for a reasonable accommodation.”
Yongelson has asked for a jury trial and is seeking lost wages and benefits, back pay and front pay, damages from emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, and other compensatory damages, including attorney’s fees.
Clarkstown answered the complaint, denying all the material allegations. It also asserted its actions were based on “legitimate nondiscriminatory, nonretaliatory, business reasons.”
The town and the named defendants challenge Youngelson’s status as a qualified individual under state and federal law, and assert Youngelson’s claims are barred by his own culpable conduct, and to award him damages would unjustly enrich him.
Youngelson is represented by Michael Taubenfeld of Fisher Taubenfeld LLP. Clarkstown and the named defendants are represented by Anthony Piscionere of Piscionere & Nemarow, PC and Eliza Scheibel of Wilson Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP.
Knights Of Columbus Holding Company Files Amended Petition Questioning Court’s Authority Over Leasing Decision
For almost three years, the Town of Haverstraw has funded attorneys to represent 56 West Broad Street Angels, Inc. in the town’s effort to take control of the Knights of Columbus’ meeting hall in the Village of Haverstraw.
56 West Broad Street is the nonprofit, charitable entity that holds title to the Knights’ property. After efforts to sell the building to two affordable housing developers were derailed, and an effort to have the Knights donate its building to the town went nowhere, the town chose and paid for counsel to represent the holding company to negotiate a long-term lease with the town.
When the Attorney General’s Office (OAG) didn’t go along with the scheme, 56 West Broad Street filed a lawsuit in Rockland County Supreme Court asking the court to allow the non-profit, charitable entity to convert to a non-profit, non-charitable entity, presuming that the change would allow the holding company to sign the lease with the town without court or OAG approval.
The Attorney General’s Office filed an objection, arguing that the holding company’s existence was to serve the Knights, and that it could not change its status.
In the alternative, the holding company asked the court to approve the long-term lease that the OAG said was riddled with irregularities, was one-sided, and unfair to the Knights, who were not represented in court.
In June, the court allowed the holding company to file an amended petition, giving the Attorney General’s office an opportunity to object to the amendment.
Late last month, the holding company filed its proposed amended petition and added the Knights of Columbus to the case.
The proposed amendment questions for the first time whether Attorney General or Court approval are required for the holding company (or the Knights) to lease the property to the town. The petition says that the holding company was not formed for charitable purposes, and that despite its designation as charitable – in reality, it is not a charitable entity.
It also raises a new issue arguing that the Knights themselves are not a charitable organization. The petition says its legal status is that of an unincorporated association and that its does need court or OAG approval to lease the property.
If those arguments don’t fly, the proposed petition falls back on seeking court approval of the 25-year long-term lease – the same lease that the Attorney General depicted as one-sided and unfair.
Aside from the unfair aspects of the lease, the OAG has also raised issues regarding the fair market value of the lease – pointing out that the lease was negotiated without any effort to market the property to others and that the valuation report seeks to justify the terms after the lease was negotiated.
In a nutshell, the holding company argues that it doesn’t need court approval to lease the property to the town, and that the lease represents a fair, even-handed, arms-length negotiation between the holding company and the town, and that the Knights themselves are supportive of the arrangement.
The OAG has until September 16 to file objections to the proposed amendment.
Acceptance of the proposed amendment does not equate with consent to the lease – that would be litigated anew after the court decides on allowing the amendment.
