994 F. Supp. 2d 569
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff William Glaser, diagnosed with autism, worked at Gap as a merchandise handler for over seven years and was terminated on November 6, 2009 after an altercation with supervisor Milinda Mejorado.
- On November 5, 2009, Glaser asked for a plastic “fish knife,” then approached Mejorado to apologize for a prior incident; witnesses reported Glaser gestured and briefly blocked Mej orado’s egress but did not report threatening words; contemporaneous termination documents do not mention a knife.
- Gap managers (trainers and HR) had previously counseled Glaser about interpersonal conduct (standing too close, putting hands on a supervisor, fixating, turning red, clenching fists) and some supervisors perceived him as having cognitive/communication impairments.
- Glaser alleges claims under the ADA (as amended by the ADAAA) and NYSHRL: discriminatory discharge, failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, failure to train, and an aiding/abetting claim against Mejorado; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court treated disputed facts about Gap’s knowledge of Glaser’s disability, the knife allegation, and whether the November 5 conduct was disability-related as genuine issues precluding summary judgment on key claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glaser is a "disabled" person under the ADA | Glaser’s autism substantially limits major life activities (interaction/brain function); ADAAA and regs broaden coverage | Gap argued Glaser’s interpersonal limitations are not "substantial" and relied on pre-ADAAA caselaw | Court: disputed factual record and ADAAA/regulations create triable issue; summary judgment denied |
| Whether termination was "because of" disability (causation) | Glaser: prior coaching and observed anxiety/fixations show his behavior was disability-related; Gap perceived impairment and relied on that perception | Gap: terminated for violating workplace/violence policies (blocking, alleged knife); lacked notice of autism | Court: factual disputes about Gap’s knowledge/perception and the reasons for discharge create triable issues; summary judgment denied |
| Failure to accommodate (duty to initiate interactive process) | Glaser: Gap knew or should have known he was disabled and thus had duty to accommodate/initiate interactive process even absent formal request | Gap: impairment not obvious; no request for accommodation; any requested accommodation unduly burdensome | Court: material disputes about Gap’s knowledge and reasonableness/undue hardship; summary judgment denied |
| Individual liability under NYSHRL (aiding/abetting by Mejorado) | Glaser: Mejorado actively caused termination and may have misrepresented facts to HR | Defendants: Mejorado did not decide termination; no underlying discrimination/failure to accommodate | Court: factual disputes permit reasonable inference Mejorado participated; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; inferences to nonmoving party)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (employer duty to accommodate known disabilities; may arise without employee request)
- Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 386 F.3d 192 (pre-ADAAA standard on "interacting with others" as a major life activity)
- Wesley-Dickson v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 973 F.Supp.2d 386 (application of McDonnell Douglas in ADA/NYSHRL context)
- Matter of McEniry v. Landi, 84 N.Y.2d 554 (NY Court of Appeals: NYSHRL standard linking disability to conduct leading to termination)