La Salle Academy is a private Catholic high school in New York City. In 2018, the School hired Joseph Rosich, a Hispanic male who was 65 years old when he filed this lawsuit in 2024, to serve as a full-time science teacher. As part of his assigned duties, Rosich was responsible for overseeing homeroom, which began promptly at 7:40 a.m., with staff expected to arrive before that time. The School’s employee handbook stated that lateness was grounds for disciplinary action.
In November 2021, Rosich was involved in a car accident involving a deer, which he claimed resulted in a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis and triggered anxiety about driving, particularly in low-light or early-morning conditions. In November 2022, one year after the accident, Rosich sent an email to the School’s principal requesting a “ten-minute grace period” in the morning, which would allow him to arrive slightly later than required. He referenced his car accident and explained that driving in the dark was difficult for him following the accident. He did not mention a diagnosis of PTSD, nor did he state that he had a medical condition requiring accommodation under the ADA.
Principal Bryan Daly responded that he could not authorize a grace period and recommended that Rosich explore alternative transportation options, such as the subway, to avoid lateness. Rosich replied that using the subway had not worked well for him, and reiterated his difficulty with early travel in the dark. The principal reiterated that timely arrival was essential for faculty, citing fairness to other teachers and the School’s operational needs. Daly emphasized that the School had historically held teachers accountable for punctuality and warned that continued tardiness could lead to consequences.
Despite this exchange, Rosich continued to arrive late several times, often by only a few minutes. He claimed that he was never written up for tardiness and believed the School was informally tolerating his lateness. However, in the Spring of 2023, Rosich was assigned to a science lab classroom with no working heat, which he viewed as a form of retaliation. He also received a new employment contract for the upcoming 2023-2024 school year, but the contract did not specify a salary, due to pending union negotiations.
On May 30, 2023, Rosich emailed School administrators seeking clarification about the missing salary terms, saying it would be “impossible” for him to sign the contract without knowing his salary or salary range. The School told Rosich he should contact the union with questions. Rosich did not return a signed contract and later that same day was informed that the School had interpreted his failure to sign as a decision not to return. His position was subsequently posted, and he was denied reemployment.
Rosich filed complaints with the state and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He then filed suit in federal court, alleging various claims including under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and Title VII. The School moved to dismiss.
The Court granted the School’s motion and dismissed the case in full.
The Court first considered Rosich’s failure to accommodate claim. To state a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) they are a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the employer was aware of the disability; (3) the employee requested a reasonable accommodation; (4) the employer failed to provide the accommodation; and (5) the failure resulted in an adverse employment action or otherwise interfered with the employee’s ability to perform the job.
Here, the Court found that Rosich’s ADA claim failed at multiple steps of this framework. First, he did not sufficiently allege that he had a qualifying disability. While he claimed that he experienced difficulties driving in the dark due to a prior car accident, he did not allege that he had been diagnosed with a recognized mental health condition such as PTSD at the time he requested the accommodation. More critically, the Court held that Rosich never notified the School that he was requesting a workplace accommodation due to a disability. His emails to the principal referenced his prior accident and travel challenges but did not mention a medical condition or use language indicating a formal accommodation request.
Without knowledge of a disability or a clear link between the condition and the requested accommodation, the School had no obligation under the ADA to grant the request. The Court emphasized that an employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process is not triggered unless the employee provides adequate notice of both the disability and the need for accommodation. Because Rosich did not do so, and because the requested ten-minute grace period was not accompanied by any medical documentation or disability disclosure, the ADA claim was dismissed.
The Court also dismissed Rosich’s discrimination claims under the ADA, ADEA, and Title VII, finding that he had not sufficiently alleged adverse employment actions or discriminatory motive. The only adverse action the Court recognized was his assignment to an unheated classroom. However, Rosich failed to show that similarly situated younger or female teachers were treated more favorably, and his allegations that other older male colleagues were also mistreated were too conclusory and factually underdeveloped to support a claim. Likewise, Rosich’s claim that the School retaliated against him under the ADA for requesting an accommodation failed because the Court found he never engaged in protected activity—i.e., he never told the School that he had a disability or that his accommodation request was tied to a disability.
Rosich sought leave to amend, but the Court denied it as futile. His proposed amended complaint added details about his conversations with School leadership and his coworkers’ treatment but still failed to address the deficiencies in his original claims, including the failure to plausibly allege disability, comparators, or discriminatory animus.
Rosich v. La Salle Acad. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161523.
Note: This case serves as a reminder that performance concerns often overlap with unspoken or emerging disability-related issues. While the Court here concluded that the School was not on notice of a qualifying disability, another court might reach a different conclusion where an employee references apprehension or travel difficulties stemming from a documented incident, such as a car accident.