304 F. Supp. 3d 360
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff, an NYPD Computer Specialist Level III, alleges acid reflux exacerbated by dust after her unit moved from the 7th to the 8th floor of One Police Plaza and sought accommodation.
- Plaintiff requested reassignment back to the 7th floor; defendants offered an air purifier, cleaning, and an alternate transfer to a 7th-floor LAN unit (which Plaintiff viewed as a demotion).
- Parties conducted air-quality testing; both experts reported dust levels within permissible limits, though Plaintiff submitted a physician’s note diagnosing dust-triggered chemical sensitivities.
- Defendants scheduled a disability-related medical exam; Plaintiff refused to attend because she wanted her lawyer present; defendants contend this stalled the interactive process.
- Procedurally, defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment on discrimination (adverse action), ADA medical-exam claim, and hostile-work-environment claims, but denied summary judgment on failure-to-accommodate claims under ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of complaint | Plaintiff's suit was timely because her counsel-stamped receipt shows later receipt of right-to-sue letter | Presumption that right-to-sue is received 3 days after mailing makes suit untimely | Plaintiff rebutted presumption with receipt and paralegal affidavit; complaint timely |
| Disability discrimination (adverse action) | Failure to accommodate amounts to adverse employment action | No adverse employment action occurred; failure-to-accommodate is separate theory | No adverse-action claim proven; summary judgment for defendants on discrimination claims |
| Failure to accommodate | Plaintiff sought move to 7th floor as reasonable; offered measures (air purifier, cleaning) were ineffective or insufficient | Defendants offered reasonable accommodations (air purifier, cleaning, transfer to 7th-floor LAN); Plaintiff refused medical exam; transfer would be inefficient/demotion | Genuine disputes of material fact on reasonableness and interactive process; summary judgment denied on failure-to-accommodate claims |
| Disability-related medical exam | Plaintiff provided doctor’s note and objected to exam without lawyer present | Exam was job-related and consistent with business necessity to determine appropriate accommodation | Exam lawful; summary judgment for defendants on medical-exam claim |
| Hostile work environment | Supervisor disclosed confidential EEO complaint aloud near Plaintiff’s desk | Conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to create abusive environment | Insufficient evidence of severe or pervasive conduct; summary judgment for defendants on hostile-work-environment claims |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (failure to accommodate can support discrimination where it results in adverse action)
- Noll v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015) (reasonableness and effectiveness as hallmarks of accommodations; plainly reasonable standard)
- Wernick v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 91 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 1996) (fact-specific reasonableness inquiry for accommodations)
- Conroy v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (employer must show business necessity for disability-related inquiries)
- Sherlock v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 84 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 1996) (rebutting presumption of receipt of right-to-sue letter)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard for hostile work environment: severe or pervasive discrimination)