DECISION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. See dkt. # 10. The parties have briefed the issues, and the Court will decide the matter without oral argument. I. Background This case concerns Plaintiff Joshua Paul’s claims that Defendants, the County of Madison and the Madison County Sheriff’s Office, discriminated against him because of his disabilities and retaliated against him for complaining about that discrimination in violation of United States and New York law. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from June 2, 2008 until January 31, 2022. Complaint (“Complt.”), dkt. # 1, at 15. Plaintiff alleges that he “is an individual with a disability,” and at the times relevant to the Complaint, “suffered, and still suffers from, physical impairments.” Id. at 16. Plaintiff further alleges that “[t]hese impairments include epilepsy, which Plaintiff was first diagnosed with in November 2019.” Id. Plaintiff also suffers from “a mental disability.” Id. at 17. He received a diagnosis of “adjustment disorder with depressed mood” on September 28, 2021. Id. Plaintiff began to work for Defendants on June 2, 2008. Id. at 25. His em ployment ended with his termination on January 31, 2022. Id. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was a Deputy Sheriff. Id. at 26. Plaintiff had a seizure at work on September 30, 2019. Id. at 27. He went to an emergency room to be evaluated and observed. Id. Plaintiff was discharged from the emergency room on October 1, 2019. Id. at 28. He had a m edical note that cleared him to return to work without restrictions. Id. He gave that note to Defendants. Id. Plaintiff received a phone call from Undersheriff Robert Lenhart on October 2, 2019. Id. at 29. Lenhart informed Plaintiff that Defendants were placing him on administrative leave until October 7, 2019. Id. Plaintiff met with Undersheriff Lenhart and Sheriff Todd Hood on that day. Id. at 30. Hood and Lenhart informed Plaintiff he was assigned to light duty. Id. Plaintiff’s schedule changed from ten hours per day Friday through Monday to eight hours per day Monday through Friday. Id. Plaintiff asked about his doctor’s note; Hood and Lenhart told him “they did not accept it and would contact his doctor to discuss Plaintiff’s job duties.” Id. After Lenhart spoke with Plaintiff’s doctor on October 8, 2019, Plaintiff was cleared to return to work, but not permitted to drive a county vehicle or carry a firearm. Id. at 31. Plaintiff was permitted to drive his personal vehicle to and from work. Id. Defendants “misinterpreted” this restriction. Id. They concluded that Plaintiff could not drive any vehicle, even his own vehicle. Id. On October 9, 2019, Hood informed Plaintiff that he needed to turn in his gun. Id. at 32. Hood further told Plaintiff he would be placed on two-weeks paid leave, and then would need to remain out on leave, using his accrued time off. Id. Plaintiff alleges that “Hood rescinded the offer of a light duty assignment, would not allow Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation of driving his own personal vehicle to work, and told Plaintiff that he was sick of dealing with Plaintiff[.]” Id. Hood also stated, Plaintiff alleges, that “ other employees were terrified to work with Plaintiff, and that they were the ones having to deal with Plaintiff.” Id. On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff’s union attorney informed Hood that Plaintiff had been placed on involuntary leave. Id. at 33. Plaintiff requested a hearing on the matter. Id. Plaintiff remained on involuntary leave until June 2, 2020. Id. Plaintiff alleges that “Sheriff Hood has refused to have any type of professional or cordial relationship with Plaintiff” since October 28, 2019. Id. at 34. Plaintiff further alleges that Sheriff Hood has “refused to acknowledge Plaintiff’s presence,” refused to speak to Plaintiff, “and often gives Plaintiff dirty looks.” Id. Plaintiff saw a medical specialist on November 7, 2019 in connection with his ongoing medical treatment. Id. at 35. That specialist diagnosed Plaintiff with focal epilepsy. Id. The specialist prescribed medication and “opined that Plaintiff could not drive or carry a firearm until March 30, 2020.” Id. The specialist found, however, that Plaintiff could return to work on a light duty assignment. Id. Plaintiff received a letter from Sheriff Hood on November 8, 2019. Id. at 36. The letter informed Plaintiff that he had not been placed on involuntary leave, “but had instead absented himself from the workplace.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that this claim was false, because Plaintiff had not “absented himself from the workplace.” Id. According to Plaintiff, he remained out of work “based on Defendants’ false pretenses.” Id. Through his union attorney, on December 5, 2019, Plaintiff requested that Sheriff Hood reinstate him to his former position. Id. at 37. Plaintiff also asked Sheriff Hood to reconsider Plaintiff’s request for light duty in light of his epilepsy diagnosis and the recommendation from his specialist. Id. Hood did not respond. Id. Plaintif f’s union president told him on December 12, 2019 that Lenhart had told the union president that “they were trying to get Plaintiff back to work, but he would need to cut ties with his Union attorney.” Id. at 38. Plaintiff’s union counsel sent Sheriff Hood a letter on January 10, 2020 that informed Hood that “Defendants’ disparate treatment of Plaintiff could constitute violations of the A[mericans] with [D]isabilities A[ct] and [the] N[ew] Y[ork] S[tate] H[uman] R[ights] L[aw].” Id. at 39. Plaintiff received a letter from the Madison County Attorney in response. Id. The letter informed Plaintiff that the County was “willing to engage in the interactive process to help him return to work.” Id. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff’s doctor cleared him to return to work without restriction on March 15, 2020. Id. at 40. Plaintiff provided that information to the Defendants, who disregarded it. Id. Indeed, on March 4, 2020, Def endants informed Plaintiff that he had not been cleared to return to work. Id. Defendants informed Plaintiff on March 5, 2020 that he would not be allowed to return to work until Defendants reviewed his medical documentation. Id. at 41. Defendants also informed Plaintiff that he would be required to sign and return a medical release form. Id. When Plaintiff asked why he needed to sign such a form when he had a doctor’s release, “he was told that he was ‘pushing the insubordinate button right now.’” Id. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants were making it exceedingly difficult for Plaintiff to return to work, despite his clearance, due to their discriminatory animus.” Id. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”) on March 16, 2020. Id. at 42. Plaintiff attempted to file a grievance on March 17, 2020. Id. at 43. Sheriff Hood informed him that he would not accept the grievance forms. Id. Hood said that “Plaintiff had ‘drawn the line in the sand’” when he used an attorney, and told him to take his grievance to the County attorney. Id. Later on March 17, “the grievance was put in abeyance at stage 2 of the procedure.”1 Plaintiff returned to the payroll as a non-essential employee on March 23, 2020. Id. at 44. “[H]e was still not permitted to return to work.” Id. Plaintiff further alleges that on May 7, 2020, this “abeyance was rescinded” and advanced to stage 3.2 On May 29, 2020, Plaintiff learned that his Stage 3 grievance “had been denied, and that it was proceeding to stage 4.” On June 1, 2020, Defendants informed Plaintiff that he was cleared to return to work on June 2, 2020. Id. at 51. On June 2, 2020 Plaintif f “was informed that his return to work constituted a settlement of his grievance.” Id. at 52. Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint to the NYSDHR on March 30, 2020. Id. at 45. Plaintiff alleges that “the retaliation and discrimination increased” after he filed that complaint. Id. Plaintiff returned to work as a Deputy Sheriff on June 2, 2020. Id. at 53. On June 9, 2020 Plaintiff sent a memorandum requesting a schedule change to Hood. Id. at 54. Plaintiff’s request came “pursuant to the suggestion of the County doctor.” Id. On July 3, 2020, Plaintiff came to work to discover that “a giant version of a photo of Sheriff Hood had been placed on the wall in the hallway directly across from his desk[.]” Id. at 55. Plaintiff alleges that the photo appeared “in an attempt to intimidate and harass him further.” Id. Plaintiff “had previously told a coworker that he found the photos of Sheriff Hood in the office to be intimidating.” Id. On July 4, 2020, “Plaintiff was told that he could not park in the parking spot closest to the door because it was not his assigned parking spot.” Id. at 56. July 4 was a holiday and no one else was working. Id. Plaintiff “was assigned” around thirteen cases in July 2020, “a disproportionate number of cases more than his coworkers.” Id. at 57. On July 26, 2020, Plaintiff withdrew his NYSDHR complaint “out of fear of further retaliation.” Id. at 58. Plaintiff believed that he had to withdraw his complaint “to maintain his job.” Id. Still, Plaintiff alleges, “the discrimination and retaliation continued.” Id. at 59. Plaintiff alleges that on November 6, 2020, Plaintiff went to a Lieutenant for instructions on how to complete paperwork on behalf of a sergeant who was not working. Id. Plaintiff claims that on November 19, 2020, he “was scolded for not following the chain-of command, which was used against him on his performance evaluation.” Id. Later, “[t]he Lieutenant falsely claimed that she did not provide Plaintiff with any instructions.” Id. Sheriff Hood also denied Plaintiff’s November 24, 2020 request to teach snowmobile safety classes. Id. at 60. Plaintiff wanted to “maintain his instructor certification.” Id. Plaintiff claims that “other similarly situated coworkers were permitted to maintain their instructor certifications.” Id. Plaintiff received a poor evaluation review on December 1, 2020. Id. at 61. He received several ratings of “[d]oes not meet expectations.” Id. Some unidentified person told Plaintiff that he would receive a “write up” for violating social media policy. Id. at 62. Plaintiff had made a comment on his personal Facebook page. Id. Plaintiff alleges that “other similarly situated coworkers had never been written up or disciplined for their social media comments and posts.” Id. Sergeant Matt White directed Plaintiff on January 202, 2021 that all of his reports must be reviewed by Sgt. White. Id. at 63. No other officer faced similar rules. Id. Plaintiff also had “to send Sgt. White an email with the date and time he leaves any case[.]” Id. Three of Plaintiff’s coworkers met to discuss a team that Plaintiff was part of on February 3, 2021. Id. at 64. Plaintiff “was not notified of or invited to the meeting.” Id. The meeting concerned developing interview questions for new candidates, but Plaintiff “was not invited to be part of the interviews.” Id. Plaintiff had more seniority than these coworkers. Id. Sergeant White issued Plaintiff formal written counseling about Plaintiff’s alleged violation of social media policy on February 15, 2021. Id. at 65. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sought to terminate Plaintiff “and were inventing performance issues and disciplinary issues to create a false sense of ‘legitimacy.’” Id. at 66. On February 21, 2021, Plaintiff learned that all employees had been reassigned to work schedules Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Id. at 67. Plaintiff advised Sergeant White that “it would not work with his schedule[.]” Id. Some unspecified person “ later told” Plaintiff “that management did not want Plaintiff working weekends anymore, for various and capricious reasons.” Id. On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff drove his work vehicle to the home of his estranged wife, where the two had “an exchange.” Id. at 68. Plaintiff’s wife contacted the police. Id. Some unidentified person or agency transported Plaintiff to a Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Syracuse, New York. Id. at 69. Plaintiff went voluntarily to the hospital for evaluation. Id. Plaintiff was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood at the hospital. Id. at 70. He was released the same day. Id. Plaintiff “was not considered a threat to himself or anyone else.” Id. Plaintiff has since “sought and received psychiatric treatment.” Id. at 71. Plaintiff received a letter from Undersheriff Wilcox on September 29, 2021 that notified Plaintiff he would be placed on administrative leave pending an investigation of the incident. Id. at 72. Plaintiff received a call from Sheriff Hood on January 31, 2022 at 12:49 p.m. that directed Plaintiff to appear for a meeting at 3 p.m. Id. at 73. Hood told Plaintiff he would not wait for Plaintiff’s union attorney to arrive. Id. At that meeting, attended by Plaintiff, Hood, Ryan Aylward, and Matt Schwock,3 Plaintiff received a notice of termination. Id. at 73. He did not receive a hearing or other process before this notice. Id. The notice charged Plaintiff with “five specifications” of Misconduct/Incompetence. Id. at 74. Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he reasons stated were false and retaliatory.” Id. The notice further stated that “an employee has twenty working days to submit a grievance of a disciplinary action before the penalty is deemed accepted. Id. at 75. The notice also provided that an employee has a right to representation from a union attorney and a right to request arbitration at Stage 4 of the process. Id. Despite these stated protections, “Plaintif f was terminated effective immediately. Id. Plaintiff filed a grievance on February 7, 2022, within twenty days of the notice. Id. at 76. That grievance is still pending. Id. Plaintiff has been terminated, meaning that his termination was “final long before the grievance was resolved.” Id. Plaintiff’s termination led to the permanent invalidation of his police officer certification, even though his grievance was still pending. Id. at 78. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains four counts. Count One claims discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s disabilities in violation of the ADA. Count Two claims retaliation for opposing an act made unlawful under the ADA. Count Three and Count Four raise the same discrimination and retaliation claims under New York law. After service of the Complaint, Defendants filed the instant motion. The parties then briefed the issues, bringing the case to its present posture. II. LEGAL STANDARDS Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A defendant moving for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) argues that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, even if all factual allegations in the complaint were proved true. In addressing such motions, the Court must accept “all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009). This tenet does not apply to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). III. Analysis Defendants seek dismissal on a number of grounds, which the Court will address in turn. A. Madison County Sheriff’s Office Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant Madison County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) is a municipal department of Madison County, a municipal corporation.” Complt. at 19. “Under New York law, departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality, do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued.” Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F.Supp.2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). As such, “where both the municipality and the municipal department have been named as defendants, courts routinely have dismissed the claims against the department.” Dayton v. City of Middleton, 786 F.Supp.2d 809, 818 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Plaintiff’s position that New York law makes the County and the County Sheriff’s Department his joint employers is immaterial to this question. The issue here is whether suing both the County and the County Sheriff’s department is redundant. The Court finds that it is, and will grant the motion to dismiss with prejudice with respect to the Madison County Sheriff’s Department. B. Time-Barred Claims Defendants next argue that the Court should dismiss any of Plaintiff’s claims related to any discriminatory act that occurred before October 26, 2019 because such claims fall outside the three-year statute of limitations that apply to the ADA. Defendants argue that: Here, Plaintiff alleged facts pertaining to a seizure that he sustained while at work on or about September 30, 2019. See dkt. #1 at 27. He added allegations pertaining to medical treatment, including his doctor’s recommendation that he could return to work but could not drive a County vehicle or carry a firearm. See id. at
