675 F. App'x 81
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Evelyn Graham (pro se) sued Macy’s under the ADA after employment incidents including a 2013 leave of absence and return-to-work events.
- Graham alleged Macy’s failed to provide reasonable accommodations (e.g., frequent breaks) and retaliated by opposing her unemployment benefits.
- The district court dismissed Graham’s amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- On appeal, Graham reframed some claims as disability discrimination rather than failure-to-accommodate.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and considered whether Graham sufficiently pleaded an ADA claim and notice of needed accommodations.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court, finding the amended complaint did not plausibly state an ADA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate post-leave | Graham: Macy’s did not accommodate her bipolar disorder on return and failed to engage in the interactive process | Macy’s: Graham did not request specific accommodations or show she could perform essential job functions on return | Held: Dismissed — Graham failed to plausibly allege she could perform essential functions or that Macy’s had notice of a specific accommodation need |
| Request for frequent breaks as accommodation | Graham: 2011 medical form and other allegations put Macy’s on notice she needed breaks every 30 minutes | Macy’s: The form did not clearly notify Macy’s that breaks would be required after return from leave | Held: Dismissed — form was insufficient to provide notice of needed breaks |
| Retaliation via opposing unemployment benefits | Graham: Macy’s retaliated by opposing her unemployment claim | Macy’s: Opposition was temporary and concerned post-employment benefits, not an adverse employment action | Held: Dismissed — opposition was not a materially adverse change in employment |
| Claim framing (discrimination vs. accommodation) | Graham: On appeal recharacterized as discrimination because Macy’s tried to engage in interactive process | Macy’s: Even under discrimination theory, allegations do not show ability to perform essential job functions | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff did not plausibly allege ability to perform essential functions at time of return |
Key Cases Cited
- Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to pleading-stage assumption of truth)
- Galabya v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 2000) (what constitutes materially adverse employment action for retaliation)
- Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (employee’s duty to inform employer of need for accommodation)
- McMillan v. City of N.Y., 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements of ADA discrimination claim)