A coworker allegedly mocked his disability in a chat the supervisor was part of
A longtime MTA employee claims the transit authority ignored his disability accommodation requests for years and let harassment fester in workplace group chats.
Rajib Das, a Special Inspector with nearly a decade of service at New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, filed suit in federal court on January 29, alleging the agency repeatedly failed to respond to his requests for a less physically demanding assignment. The case, which has yet to be decided, names the MTA and Armengol Viera as defendants and raises claims under New York State and City human rights laws as well as the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The allegations read like a cautionary tale for HR departments navigating accommodation requests. Das, who has gout and lichen planus, says he first asked for reassignment in April 2022. The MTA never responded. He followed up a month later and was told he would hear back if something opened up on Staten Island. That call never came.
What happened next should give any HR professional pause. According to the lawsuit, the lack of accommodation led to a torn ligament in his foot, forcing Das onto workers' compensation leave for a full year. When he returned in June 2023, his supervisor allegedly told him to "get it together" about his physical limitations or "transit will fire you."
The case also spotlights the risks lurking in employee group chats. On January 1, 2024, a co-worker named Thomas Fernia allegedly posted "Year of the Gout" with a wiggling toe emoji in a chat that included Das's supervisor. For employers, the message is clear: what happens in the group chat does not stay in the group chat, especially when management is present and silent.
Das further alleges the MTA denied him promotions three times, in March 2024, October 2024, and March 2025, solely because he was on workers' compensation leave. The lawsuit argues this policy denies disabled employees a privilege of employment without any attempt at the interactive process required under the law.
The filing also includes race discrimination claims. Das, who is of South Asian ancestry, alleges white employees received assignments at desirable indoor locations with bathrooms and security officers, while employees of color were sent to remote posts without basic amenities. During undercover assignments, white workers allegedly stayed in uniform while non-white colleagues were required to wear street clothes.
Das is seeking back pay, front pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages.
No determination has been made on the merits of these claims. But for HR leaders, the case already offers a stark reminder: accommodation requests demand engagement, not silence. And when supervisors watch harassment unfold in real time without intervening, the liability extends well beyond the person who hit send.
