Gerard v. 1199 National Benefit Funds
1:23-cv-07950
S.D.N.Y.Sep 13, 2024Background
- Ted Gerard, a longtime employee of 1199 SEIU National Benefit Fund, was terminated after failing to comply with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, despite submitting requests for a medical accommodation and FMLA leave.
- Gerard experienced long COVID symptoms and was advised by his doctors to delay vaccination for 90 days after infection; he sought a delay as an accommodation.
- Gerard communicated the request to HR but did not provide detailed supporting medical documentation as requested.
- The Fund placed Gerard on leave pending proof of vaccination; upon his eventual vaccination, he alleged he informed his supervisor but did not provide documentary proof to HR as requested.
- Gerard filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, received a right to sue notice, and then filed claims in federal court alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, FMLA violations, and violations of NY State and City human rights and sick leave laws.
- The court addressed defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, applying liberal standards for pro se plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability Discrimination (ADA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL) | Termination and leave were discriminatory due to his disability/COVID complications | Actions based on neutral vaccine mandate, not disability; no sufficient documentation | For Defendants—no facts showing discrimination based on disability |
| Failure to Accommodate | Employer refused reasonable accommodation of delayed vaccination | Accommodation was actually provided; deadlines extended, request was honored | For Defendants—Plaintiff received requested accommodation |
| Failure of Cooperative Dialogue (NYCHRL) | Employer didn’t engage in interactive/cooperative dialogue | Employer engaged in dialogue, sought information, plaintiff failed to supply it | For Defendants—adequate interactive process occurred |
| FMLA Interference/Retaliation | Leave was denied or delayed; placement on leave due to FMLA requests | Delay was administrative; leave outcome was due to vaccine noncompliance, not FMLA activity | For Defendants—no actionable FMLA interference or retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (sets pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state plausible claim)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am. Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (NYCHRL construed more broadly than federal or state law)
- Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415 (elements of FMLA interference)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (forced leave does not violate FMLA by itself)