Durick v. New York City Department of Education
1:15-cv-07441
E.D.N.YAug 17, 2016Background
- Plaintiff was a DOE special education teacher at Fort Hamilton HS from 1991 until her retirement effective June 30, 2014; she taught resource room classes and had severe osteoarthritis in her knees.
- Beginning 2013–14, a new evaluation system (Advance) produced mixed ratings; plaintiff received an overall "Developing" rating for 2013–14 after several informal observations.
- Plaintiff requested several accommodations: exemption from stair-based fire drills (granted with assistance), a reserved parking space at the rear of the school (denied), and a 2014–15 schedule of five resource-room periods rather than a mixed schedule (grieved; plaintiff did not pursue medical exam and retired instead).
- Houlihan (principal) offered then quickly rescinded plaintiff a summer-school assignment; plaintiff alleges this and other actions amounted to age discrimination and failure to accommodate under ADEA and ADA, and constructive discharge.
- District Court dismissed individual and §1983 claims earlier; DOE moved for summary judgment on ADEA and ADA claims. The court granted summary judgment on the ADEA claim and denied in part (parking) and granted in part (schedule) summary judgment on the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, allowing a constructive discharge theory to proceed on the parking denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action giving rise to an ADEA claim | Downgraded evaluations, change to mixed 2014–15 schedule, and rescinded summer-school offer were materially adverse | Evaluations and schedule change are not materially adverse; only rescinded summer offer could be adverse but not age-motivated | Evaluations and schedule not adverse; rescinded summer offer is adverse but insufficiently connected to age — ADEA claim dismissed |
| Whether adverse action (summer offer rescission) was taken "because of" age (ADEA causation) | Ciccarone made age-related comments; those comments show bias motivating adverse actions | Houlihan (who rescinded offer) made no age comments; no evidence linking Ciccarone’s remarks to Houlihan’s action | No evidence connecting discriminatory remarks to the decisionmaker; plaintiff fails to show "but-for" causation — ADEA fails |
| Whether DOE failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability re: 2014–15 schedule (ADA) | Plaintiff requested reassignment to five resource-room periods as an accommodation for mobility limits | DOE contends schedule grievance was not an ADA accommodation request; plaintiff abandoned interactive process by not attending medical exam | Plaintiff abandoned the interactive process and did not pursue the medical exam; failure-to-accommodate claim based on schedule dismissed |
| Whether DOE failed to reasonably accommodate parking request and whether that denial supports constructive discharge (ADA) | Denial of reserved rear parking (though non-designated spots existed) was unreasonable and made working conditions intolerable leading to retirement | DOE says existing handicapped parking and alternative entrances were reasonable; no plain deficiency as matter of law | Material factual dispute exists whether parking offered was effective or reasonable; failure-to-accommodate claim and constructive discharge theory survive summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA claims require but-for causation)
- Weeks v. New York State (Div. of Parole), 273 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001) (negative evaluations not adverse absent collateral consequences)
- Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015) (plainly reasonable accommodation standard)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (elements and burdens for ADA failure-to-accommodate)
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (employer burden to prove undue hardship)
- Morris v. Schroder Capital Mgmt. N.A., 481 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for constructive discharge)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard regarding admissible evidence)