Jason Braun, a former Associate Cloud Solutions Architect at The Center for Internet Security, a non-profit cybersecurity organization based in Greenbush, New York, filed a five-count complaint alleging that his supervisor Erin Haggerty subjected him to a hostile work environment and retaliated against him after he sought accommodations for severe anxiety, depression, and chronic back pain stemming from a 2019 snowboarding injury that required two spinal surgeries in 2020. Braun alleges that after Haggerty became his direct supervisor in early 2022, she singled him out with a team-expectations email sent only to him, cut him off in meetings while remaining receptive to other colleagues, warned him there would be consequences for staying off-camera during a job interview despite significant back pain, and told him during a team meeting that he could not use his anxiety disability as an excuse any longer. He was terminated on April 1, 2022.
Braun's complaint, originally filed in New York Supreme Court, Rensselaer County in December 2024 and removed to the Northern District of New York in May 2025, names CIS and five individual employees — Haggerty, Michelle Peterson, Kristina Rankin, Carolyn Comer, and Curtis Dukes — as defendants. The five counts include ADA and NYSHRL claims for disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate against CIS; an ADA retaliation claim against CIS; an NYSHRL retaliation claim against CIS and Haggerty; and an NYSHRL aiding-and-abetting claim against the individual defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss under both Rule 12(b)(5) and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing both defective service and failure to state plausible claims. U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd, writing from Utica, New York, held that Braun had not met his burden of showing proper service on CIS, Haggerty, Rankin, Comer, or Dukes. As to the four individual defendants who work remotely, the court held that delivering the summons to CIS's East Greenbush office did not satisfy New York's CPLR 308(2) requirement of service at a defendant's actual place of business, because Braun had not shown those defendants maintained offices, desks, or any regular presence there. As to CIS itself, the court held that Braun had not demonstrated that the on-site security guard who accepted service was authorized to do so on the company's behalf.
Rather than dismiss the action, Judge Hurd exercised his discretion under Rule 4(m) to give Braun one final opportunity to cure the defects, ordering proper service on all defendants by April 27, 2026, with an affidavit of service filed on the docket. The court declined to reach the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments at all, stating that if Braun timely files proof of service, defendants may re-file their motion. If he fails to do so, the complaint will be dismissed without further order of the court.
The motion to dismiss was formally denied. Braun is represented by Megan Goddard and Lindsay M. Goldbrum of Goddard Law PLLC. Defendants are represented by Michael D. Billok of Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC.