Frantti v. State of New York, 414 F.Supp.3d 257

Background:

Frantti was a long‑time New York State budget examiner who was promoted to a non‑competitive Grade 31 position (principal fiscal policy analyst) while retaining a Grade 27 “hold item.”
Beginning July 2012 he developed recurrent severe gastrointestinal symptoms (later found to be psychological/stress‑related) causing frequent unpredictable full‑ and partial‑day absences.
DOB placed him on loan to DCJS; supervisors repeatedly applied DCJS time‑and‑attendance rules, evaluated him “below expectations,” removed him from the Grade 31 appointment (restoring Grade 27), and denied annual salary increases.
Frantti obtained FMLA and short‑term disability intermittently, sought limited accommodations (later‑start schedule, aggregated physician notes, working from home), filed internal complaints and DHR charges, and ultimately resigned July 11, 2016.
He sued under the Rehabilitation Act, ADA (official‑capacity injunctive relief against individuals), and §1983 Equal Protection. The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the amended complaint.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Failure to accommodate under ADA/Rehabilitation Act	Frantti needed accommodations (e.g., work from home, modified schedule, aggregated doctor notes) that would allow him to perform his job.	Plaintiff’s absences were sporadic and unpredictable; essential functions required regular physical presence and deadlines; proposed accommodations were ineffective or would eliminate essential functions.	Granted for defendants: no reasonable accommodation was shown as feasible; attendance/consistent presence was an essential function and plaintiff was unable to perform it.
2) Qualification as a "disabled" employee for accommodation purposes	His chronic, episodic GI symptoms (flair‑ups) constituted disability and justified accommodations.	Even accepting impairment, its severity rendered plaintiff unable to perform essential duties reliably; he never informed employer of the later psychiatric diagnosis or sought stress‑specific accommodations.	Granted for defendants: even if disabled, plaintiff could not show an accommodation would permit performance of essential functions.
3) Retaliation under ADA/Rehabilitation Act	After protected complaints (internal/DHR), supervisors intensified scrutiny, withheld raises, imposed discipline and Section 75 hearings.	Actions reflected legitimate, non‑retaliatory responses to attendance and performance problems; adverse actions predate or continued independent of complaints.	Granted for defendants: plaintiff did not raise triable causal/pretext evidence; employment actions were legitimate responses to chronic absenteeism.
4) §1983 Equal Protection (class‑of‑one)	He was singled out and treated worse than similarly situated employees.	Disability discrimination belongs in statute; class‑of‑one theory is not viable in public‑employment disability context.	Granted for defendants: claim abandoned in opposition and not cognizable in public‑employment disability context.

Key Cases Cited

477 U.S. 317 (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett) (summary judgment standard)
477 U.S. 242 (Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.) (materiality and genuine dispute standard)
411 U.S. 792 (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
583 F.3d 92 (McBride v. BIC Consumer Mfg. Co., Inc.) (reasonable‑accommodation elements)
711 F.3d 120 (McMillan v. City of N.Y.) (attendance/essential‑function analysis and when employer responds to conduct caused by disability)
332 F.3d 95 (Shannon v. N.Y. City Transit Auth.) (accommodation cannot eliminate essential job functions)
19 F. Supp. 3d 259 (Doak v. Johnson) (open‑ended/erratic schedules can be unreasonable accommodations)
29 F. Supp. 3d 218 (Rinaldi v. Quality King Distribs., Inc.) (chronic absenteeism not protected; attendance can be essential)