Goonan v. Federal Reserve Bank, 916 F. Supp. 2d 470

Plaintiff Bruce Goonan was employed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the Information Technology Department for 25 years, with a long history of satisfactory performance until the events at issue.
In 2010-2011, the Fed relocated staff to 3 World Financial Center (3 WFC) near Ground Zero, and Plaintiff developed PTSD and severe symptoms linked to near-continued exposure to the WTC site.
Plaintiff sought a reasonable accommodation for his PTSD, including a relocation or telecommuting arrangement, supported by medical letters.
Fed responses included denial of the accommodation as due to poor performance and a set of alternative accommodations (moving cubicle, noise mitigation, break-down of tasks, written communications) that Plaintiff deemed ineffective.
Plaintiff alleged that the proposed accommodations would not address his trauma and that the Fed refused to reconsider the accommodation, ultimately leading Plaintiff to retire in August 2011.
Plaintiff asserts ADA disability-discrimination and retaliation claims under federal and New York state/local law, with the Fed arguing preemption under the Federal Reserve Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Fed failed to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA	Goonan contends Fed's alternatives were ineffective and noncompliant	Fed argues proposed accommodations were reasonable and the process ended due to Plaintiff's performance	Plaintiff plausibly alleged unreasonableness and breakdown of the interactive process
Whether the Fed retaliated against Plaintiff for ADA-related conduct	Denial of accommodation followed Plaintiff's protected activity	Fed asserts no retaliation or that denial was based on performance	Claims survive dismissal; plausible causal link between protected activity and adverse action
Whether NYSHRL/NYCHLR claims are preempted by the FRA	State and local claims should be allowed alongside federal ADA claims	FRA preempts state/local discrimination laws	FRA does not preempt state and local anti-discrimination laws
Whether the Fed is a federal instrumentality subject to state anti-discrimination regulation	Instrumentality status does not immunize Fed from state regulation	Fed should be immune from state regulation when performing federal function	Fed is a federal instrumentality but not immune from state regulation where it does not interfere with its federal function

Beck v. Univ. of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 1996) (describes breakdown in interactive process and good-faith participation)
Borkowski v. Valley Central School Dist., 63 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1995) (plaintiff bears burden of production on reasonable accommodation; defendant bears burden if prima facie)
Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008) (interactive process and reasonable accommodations standards)
Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (discrimination claim cases where failure to accommodate can amount to discharge)
Fasano v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 457 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2006) (ADA preemption of FRA dismissed-at-pleasure provision; conflict preemption analysis)
Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005) (preemption in field/conflict; balance between banking regulations and discrimination laws)