Henny v. New York State
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15595
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Yolanda Henny, an African-American former food service worker at RPC, has chronic lymphedema and alleged disability affecting standing/walking.
- Plaintiff began at RPC in March 2006 as probationary part-time employee with a 52-week probationary period and potential termination for unsatisfactory performance.
- Shift assignments included an early 5:30 a.m.–2:00 p.m. shift and a late 10:30 a.m.–7:00 p.m. shift; Plaintiff initially worked 3:00–7:00 and sought extra hours on the early shift.
- May–August 2006 involved multiple absences/lateness; Plaintiff requested accommodations (sitting on a stool, break planning) which supervisors reportedly denied or limited.
- Plaintiff’s probation reports documented unsatisfactory Time and Attendance, with counseling‑related notes; disputes arose over when notes were written and whether certain incidents occurred.
- October 2006: Plaintiff was awarded the permanent early-shift position, then in November 2006 was terminated after a meeting citing excessive absences/tardiness; Plaintiff pursued NYSDHR charge (July 2007) and then federal action (December 2008) alleging ADA discrimination and Title VII race discrimination and retaliation; Defendants moved for summary judgment and were granted all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II ADA claims lie against state entities for employment discrimination | Plaintiff relies on Title II abrogation to pursue disability discrimination at RPC. | Title II does not cover employment discrimination and Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Title I/II claims against states. | Title II does not cover employment discrimination; Eleventh Amendment bars ADA Title II employment claims against state entities. |
| Whether Plaintiff state a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII | Exclusion from early shift and termination reflect racial discrimination against African-American Plaintiff. | Termination and shift decisions were based on Plaintiff's excessive absences and tardiness; no discriminatory motive shown. | Plaintiff failed to show discriminatory intent; absence/tardiness and lack of similarly situated comparators undermined inference of race discrimination; summary judgment for Defendants on race claim. |
| Whether Plaintiff can establish retaliation under Title VII based on complaints about treatment | Plaintiff engaged in protected activity related to discriminatory treatment and was retaliated against. | Administrative complaint did not raise retaliation; failure to prove prima facie case. | Retaliation claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion linkage and no causal connection shown. |
| Whether there are material factual disputes that preclude summary judgment on the ADA/Title VII claims | Various absentee records and counseling notes create triable issues about motive. | Record supports legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons; Plaintiff failed to show pretext. | No genuine disputes; defendants entitled to summary judgment. |
| Whether Ex parte Young or other theories permit prospective relief against state defendants | Not addressed as claims were dismissed on statutory/merits grounds; Ex parte Young inapplicable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (Title I ADA immunity against state entities; sovereign immunity intact for employment claims)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (ADA structure and scope; public services vs employment)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in retaliation/ discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (Prima facie case and burden-shifting in Title VII discrimination)
- Zimmerman v. Oregon Dept. of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999) (Title II scope of public services; employment claims questioned under Title II)