Krasner v. City of New York, 580 F. App'x 1

Background

Plaintiff Glenn Krasner, a City of New York firefighter who disclosed he has Asperger’s syndrome, was fired after a lengthy disciplinary history including insubordination, profanity, and threats toward coworkers.
Krasner sued the City and the FDNY under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation; FDNY as an entity was dismissed below and that dismissal is not appealed.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding Krasner failed to show intentional discrimination or retaliation; Krasner appealed only the denial of discrimination and retaliation claims.
The City relied on extensive documented misconduct and an administrative law judge’s findings (given collateral estoppel effect) as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination.
Krasner argued he was otherwise qualified and that his termination (and presentation of charges) was caused by his disability-related reports/requests to the FDNY’s EEOC unit; he mainly relied on temporal proximity to support retaliation.
The Second Circuit affirmed, finding the City’s misconduct-based justification legitimate, and that Krasner failed to raise a genuine dispute of pretext or causation for retaliation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Krasner established a prima facie ADA/NYSHRL discrimination claim (i.e., was "otherwise qualified")	Krasner contended he was qualified despite Asperger’s and that disability motivated his firing	City argued extensive misconduct justified termination, independent of disability	Court: Did not resolve prima facie question; City stated legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (misconduct) and Krasner failed to show pretext — claim fails
Whether employer’s stated reason (misconduct) was pretext for disability discrimination	Krasner argued termination was caused by disability and City’s reasons were pretextual	City pointed to uncontested record of repeated serious misconduct and ALJ findings	Held: No genuine dispute of material fact on pretext; misconduct is a lawful basis even if related to disability
Whether Krasner established ADA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation	Krasner claimed protected activity (reports/ accommodation request) led to presentation of charges and termination, relying on temporal proximity	City argued adverse actions predated protected activity and timing alone insufficient; some events were time‑barred	Held: Timing was inadequate to infer causation; no evidence that retaliatory motive caused adverse action — retaliation claims fail
Whether NYCHRL’s broader standard saves Krasner’s claims	Krasner stressed NYCHRL’s more lenient standards and multiple evidentiary routes to liability	City argued record shows discrimination played no role; collateral estoppel supports misconduct findings	Held: Even under NYCHRL standard, record establishes as a matter of law that discrimination played no role; summary judgment appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir.) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard when record cannot lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (articulation of legitimate nondiscriminatory reason ends prima facie inquiry)
Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (employment discrimination principles; employer need not retain potentially violent employee)
McElwee v. Cnty. of Orange, 700 F.3d 635 (misconduct related to disability can justify termination)
Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (temporal proximity alone insufficient where adverse actions predate protected activity)
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (NYCHRL standard and analysis for retaliation)
Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64 (collateral estoppel for administrative findings)