A federal judge has dismissed a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former Woodstock police officer who alleged he was fired because he had Parkinson’s disease.
On September 23, northern district court judge Lawrence Kahn dismissed former officer Anthony Schleuderer’s federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims against town supervisor Bill McKenna and police chief Clayton Keefe. Because there was no individual liability in employment cases. Kahn ruled, Schleuderer had no ADA claim against the town, and dismissed a federal claim he had been discriminated against based on his disability. Since the federal claims were dismissed, Kahn also dismissed state-level claims.
Schleuderer had been a Woodstock officer since 2011. The town, McKenna and Keefe had moved the case to federal court in February 2025.
In March 2023, Schleuderer informed the defendants of his Parkinson’s diagnosis. He stated he “began experiencing difficulties” maintaining his firearms qualification, but “was otherwise capable of performing the essential functions of his job.” He said he made multiple requests for a “reasonable accommodation” to continue as an officer, and sought such roles as dispatcher. He claimed he inquired about taking the civil-service exam for full-time dispatcher, but that the town had “subverted the New York Civil Service Law by appointing two part-time employees to perform work of a full-time dispatcher position.”
The officer was terminated on January 5, 2024.
McKenna said Schleuderer was offered a provisional full-time dispatcher position, but refused it. He also refused an offer for a part-time dispatcher position on May 17. McKenna said he was encouraged to pursue positions within the town highway department, but would have needed to obtain a commercial driver’s license.
Kahn ruled Schleuderer did not state a claim for relief under the ADA. The judge agreed with the defendants’ claim that he had failed to allege how his Parkinson’s diagnosis affects a “major life activity,” and how such an activity has been “substantially limited” by his condition.
“Nowhere in his complaint or response does plaintiff explain how his condition substantially impairs his ability to perform a major life activity or how this condition ‘precludes him from working in a class or broad range of jobs,’” Kahn wrote. A diagnosed disability did not ”automatically equate to having a ‘disability’ as defined under the ADA.”
Schleuderer has until October 23 to file a notice of appeal.
Join the family! 
