Harrison v. SUNY Downstate Medical Center
1:16-cv-01101
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Harrison, a SUNY Downstate HR employee since 2002, took sick leave beginning Dec. 29, 2014, supported by a doctor’s note and clearance from SUNY Student-Employee Health Service.
- Her supervisor, Anthony Parker, demanded more detailed medical information (diagnosis/prognosis) and allegedly pressured her to sign a medical-release; Harrison refused citing medical privacy.
- Parker reportedly behaved loudly and belligerently in meetings, allegedly singled out female employees for similar inquiries, and treated male employees more respectfully.
- Harrison filed internal complaints to SUNY labor relations and alleges she was told she was causing problems and was terminated on Feb. 9, 2015.
- Procedural posture: Defendants moved to dismiss Harrison’s amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Court granted dismissal in part and denied in part on Sept. 25, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper medical inquiry (Rehabilitation Act §12112(d)(4)(A)) | Parker demanded diagnosis/prognosis after Harrison was cleared to return; that was a prohibited inquiry | Employer contends the inquiries fit the business-necessity exception (safety/curbing absenteeism) | Claim survives 12(b)(6); business-necessity defense not shown on complaint face and typically resolved later |
| Disability discrimination (Rehabilitation Act, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) | SUNY/Parker discriminated based on actual or perceived disability | Defendants argue plaintiff fails to plead she was disabled or perceived as disabled | Dismissed for failure to plead disability or that she was regarded as disabled |
| Gender discrimination (Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) | Parker treated women worse, made gendered comments, and required female employees to produce medical details while sparing males | Defendants say comparators not shown similarly situated; allegations are conclusory | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead comparator facts or non-conclusory inference of gender-based discrimination |
| Retaliation (Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, Rehabilitation Act) | Harrison complained to labor relations about Parker’s conduct and was fired in retaliation | Defendants contend complaints did not put employer on notice of gender-based discrimination and thus are not protected activity under Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL | Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim survives (she opposed improper medical inquiries); Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation claims dismissed for failure to show protected activity tied to gender |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Conroy v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (ADA/Rehab Act: medical-inquiry prohibition and business-necessity exception)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL requires showing of differential treatment and distinctive analysis)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) ( Title VII pleading: employer discriminated "because of" protected trait )