A former firefighter has filed suit in federal court alleging disability discrimination and retaliation by the leadership of the Oyster Bay Fire Department Company No. 1. The lawsuit, brought by 59-year-old Joseph Minicozzi Jr., a retired FDNY firefighter and 9/11 responder, asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to the complaint, Minicozzi had been a member of OBFC for over 28 years, beginning as a teenage volunteer and later returning after his FDNY retirement. When he returned, he was classified as a Class B firefighter due to a disability. He alleges that his disability status was well-known to the department’s leadership.

The complaint details an incident that Minicozzi claims led to his summary suspension and eventual expulsion. The allegations, quoted directly from the complaint, read as follows:

• On or about May 21, 2024, Mr. MINICOZZI was having a private conversation with another member of OBFC when, unexpectedly and uninvited, Defendant Assistant Chief FRANK MANTEGARI, III interjected himself in the conversation. There were several OBFC members present as well as OBFC’s civilian employee.
• MANTEGARI overheard Mr. MINICOZZI discussing his disability when MANTEGARI loudly exclaimed in sum or substance, ‘I am sick and tired of this disability bull shit, you’re suspended.’ This was not the first time MANTEGARI had disparaged Mr. MINICOZZI because of his disability.
• MANTEGARI summarily suspended MINICOZZI simply for being a disabled Life Member of OBFC.
• MANTEGARI then began to verbally assault, bully, and berate Mr. MINICOZZI. Specifically, MANTEGARI exclaimed that Mr. MINICOZZI’s disability was fake and non-existent. MANTEGARI’s verbal assault was overheard by several members of OBFC and a civilian employee of OBFC. MANTEGARI stated in sum or substance ‘Your disability is bullshit’ and/or ‘I’m sick of hearing about your alleged disability.’ MANTEGARI also became very aggressive.
• MANTEGARI’s behavior and verbal assault was troubling and extremely upsetting to Mr. MINICOZZI. MINICOZZI felt fearful and believed that MANTEGARI would physically assault him.
• Despite MANTEGARI’s verbal assault and aggressive behavior, MINICOZZI exclaimed to MANTEGARI that he could not suspend him for merely being disabled. MINICOZZI further stated that he intended to file a formal charge against him for his conduct.
• Mr. MINICOZZI expressed his intent to file a harassment, discrimination, and workplace violence complaint against Chief MANTEGARI for his behavior, conduct, and for having disclosed Mr. MINICOZZI’s disability to the members present and OBFC’s civilian employee.
• MANTEGARI, hearing of Mr. MINICOZZI’s intent to file a formal charge against him, became further incensed and immediately suspended MINICOZZI for an additional thirty (30) days without notice, cause, or process in retaliation of MINICOZZI’s anticipated complaint of harassment, discrimination, and workplace violence. When Mr. MINICOZZI again protested and stated that MANTEGARI could not suspend him, MANTEGARI increased the suspension by an additional thirty (30) days for a total of ninety (90) days.
• Mr. MINICOZZI left the premises as he felt fearful that he would be assaulted.
• This was not the first time MANTEGARI had behaved in this manner.
• MANTEGARI, with the assistance of the other Line Officers, then commenced a campaign to harass and then ultimately to expel Mr. MINICOZZI from OBFC.

Minicozzi claims that in addition to the suspension described above, OBFC later placed further restrictions on his participation, refused to process his formal complaint, and ultimately expelled him following what he alleges was a procedurally deficient hearing. He seeks at least $3 million in damages.

The defendants named in the suit include the Oyster Bay Fire Department, Assistant Chief Frank Mantegari III, and several unnamed line officers. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Note – this is (at least) the second suit Minicozzi has filed over this. We covered the earlier case (an Article 78 proceeding) in May of this year.