Knope v. Garland
20-3274-cv
| 2d Cir. | Nov 9, 2021Background
- Sharon Knope was a Victim Witness Coordinator for the USAO WDNY (1996–2016) and suffered from celiac disease, IBS, and recurrent kidney stones that worsened after 2005.
- On June 24, 2015 Knope requested removal from after‑hours on‑call as a reasonable accommodation; parties began accommodation discussions.
- In September 2015 Knope began indefinite FMLA leave; her provider later certified she could perform “no work of any kind” and expected at least 12 months of incapacity.
- The USAO denied further unpaid leave, initiated termination proceedings while accommodation discussions were on hold, and terminated Knope about seven months after her leave became indefinite.
- Knope sued under the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII for failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, retaliation, and sex discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for the USAO, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable accommodation | Knope sought removal from on‑call as a reasonable accommodation to perform essential job functions. | After accommodation request, Knope’s provider certified she could not work at all, so no accommodation could enable performance. | Accommodation claim fails: medical certification of inability to work makes accommodation impossible; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Sex discrimination (Title VII) | Adverse actions (on‑call requirement, failure to accommodate, termination) were motivated by sex; cites comparator who received extended leave. | Termination and treatment were nondiscriminatory—based on indefinite medical inability to work; comparator facts not shown to be similar. | No evidence of disparate treatment by a similarly situated employee; employer offered legitimate reason; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Hostile work environment (Rehabilitation Act & Title VII) | Repeated supervisory conflicts over hours/responsibilities and accommodation negotiations created a hostile workplace. | Incidents were episodic and not severe or pervasive enough to alter terms/conditions of employment. | Sporadic conflicts and ordinary accommodation negotiations were not sufficiently continuous or severe; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Retaliation (Rehabilitation Act & Title VII) | Knope’s EEO activity and accommodation requests prompted retaliatory adverse actions, including termination. | Termination resulted from excessive, indefinite absence and medical inability to work—legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. | No causal connection shown between protected activity and termination; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McElwee v. County of Orange, 700 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review on summary judgment in employment cases)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
- Natofsky v. City of New York, 921 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2019) (elements of failure‑to‑accommodate claim under Rehabilitation Act/ADA)
- Shannon v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 332 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2003) (accommodation cannot eliminate essential job function)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment when no viable accommodation would permit continued work)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Desardouin v. City of Rochester, 708 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (hostile work environment standard under Title VII)
- Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 918 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2019) (applying ADA hostile‑work‑environment elements to disability claims)
- Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2001) (objective and subjective elements for hostile work environment)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (employer not required to hold a position open indefinitely for recovery)