D'Eredita v. ITT Water Technology, Inc.
677 F. App'x 686
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen M. D’Eredita is a former ITT Water Technology employee who alleges disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and NYSHRL based on dyslexia, denial of accommodations, a suspension, and eventual termination.
- D’Eredita previously sued ITT (related EEOC charge in 2004); that earlier suit was dismissed on summary judgment and affirmed by this Court.
- ITT moved for summary judgment in the later suit; the district court granted judgment for ITT and dismissed all claims.
- Key factual disputes involve ITT’s failure to transfer D’Eredita into several vacant positions (seniority-bidding system governed by a collective bargaining agreement) and disciplinary actions after D’Eredita visited an HR director’s home uninvited.
- The district court found ITT offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for its actions and treated certain ADA claims as time-barred, but resolved NYSHRL claims on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable accommodation via transfer despite seniority rule | Barnett requires accommodation by transferring D’Eredita into vacant jobs he applied for | Seniority/most-qualified collective-bargaining rule controls; plaintiff must show "special circumstances" to override it | Court: No genuine issue that special circumstances existed; summary judgment for ITT affirmed |
| Retaliation for prior EEOC charge and post-suspension restrictions | Suspension, limits on access, and discharge were retaliatory for protected activity | ITT proffered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (e.g., conduct visiting HR director) | Court: Plaintiff failed to show causal connection or pretext; retaliation claim dismissed |
| Timeliness of ADA claims | ADA claims should proceed despite EEOC/timeliness arguments | ADA claims barred if not filed within 300 days of EEOC charge | Court: Did not reach ADA timeliness due to disposition on merits of NYSHRL claims; affirmed dismissal on merits so timeliness issue unnecessary to decide |
| Use of prior adverse-judgment collateral effect | Prior summary judgment against plaintiff should not preclude new claims | Defendant relies on prior adverse rulings and record to undermine claims | Court: Considered prior history but resolved current claims on their merits; affirmed summary judgment for ITT |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (plaintiff bears burden to show "special circumstances" to override seniority rules for accommodations)
- Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Cifra v. G.E. Co., 252 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2001) (retaliation framework; employer's legitimate nonretaliatory reasons and pretext inquiry)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., 95 F.3d 1170 (2d Cir. 1996) (NYSHRL analyzed like ADA for purposes of claims)