Cortes v. MTA New York City Transit, 802 F.3d 226

Background

Cortes, an MTA employee promoted to train operator, was placed on medical work restrictions in 2007 after tests suggested a cardiac condition; later angiogram in Aug. 2007 showed no disease but he delayed providing results to MTA.
His CBA required a fit-for-duty certificate from MTA’s Medical Assessment Center (MAC) before returning to safety-sensitive duties; MAC maintained restrictions until it received acceptable diagnostics.
Cortes filed an NYSDHR complaint (Apr. 2007) alleging disability discrimination; NYSDHR found he failed to timely provide required medical documentation and that no reasonable accommodation was possible, and its decision became final in 2010; EEOC adopted the findings in 2012.
Cortes filed pro se federal suit (Sept. 2010) asserting ADA, Title VII, and ADEA claims (he later proceeded only on the ADA claim on appeal); district court granted summary judgment for MTA, giving substantial weight to the NYSDHR decision.
District court also considered, and dismissed, a retaliation claim (Cortes alleged retaliation for filing the NYSDHR complaint), finding no causal connection given the temporal gap and non-retaliatory medical basis for restrictions.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held that an unreviewed state administrative decision is admissible but not preclusive like a binding arbitration award; it affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim, vacated and remanded the ADA discrimination dismissal for further consideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an NYSDHR decision precludes a subsequent federal ADA claim	Cortes: NYSDHR findings should not bar federal ADA suit; he challenges MTA’s medical restrictions and discriminatory treatment	MTA: NYSDHR/EEOC findings are entitled to substantial weight and effectively preclude relitigation	Court: Unreviewed NYSDHR findings are admissible evidence but not preclusive like arbitration; vacated discrimination dismissal and remanded
Applicability of Collins (arbitration precedent) to state agency decisions	Cortes: Collins should not control because he did not arbitrate under the CBA	MTA (and district court): relied on Collins to assign near-preclusive weight to NYSDHR decision	Court: Collins applies to binding arbitration under a CBA, not to unreviewed agency rulings; Collins' heightened burden does not apply
Whether Cortes raised a prima facie ADA discrimination claim	Cortes: alleged he was barred from returning to work and faced discriminatory restrictions/overtime post-return	MTA: legitimate nondiscriminatory medical safety reasons supported by NYSDHR findings	Court: assumed prima facie case for purposes of analysis but remanded for proper consideration without Collins’ arbitration standard
Whether Cortes established retaliation for filing NYSDHR complaint	Cortes: filing was protected activity and later adverse actions were retaliatory	MTA: timing and medical evidence show non-retaliatory basis; no causal link	Court: affirmed dismissal—no causal connection (14-month gap) and non-retaliatory medical justification

Key Cases Cited

Collins v. New York City Transit Authority, 305 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2002) (arbitral decisions under a CBA have probative weight; plaintiff must show new evidence or bias to overcome)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney, 466 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (unreviewed state agency decisions are not given preclusive effect)
Joseph v. Athanasopoulos, 648 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2011) (federal discrimination suits may proceed after state administrative rejection)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)