Lopez v. Hollisco Owners' Corp.
669 F. App'x 590
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- John Lopez worked as a porter at a co-op for ~15 years; his employment ended in Feb/Mar 2014 after he informed a supervisor he might have hepatitis.
- Property owner Hollisco Owners’ Corp. and manager Midboro Management, with on-site manager Santaniello, told Lopez to leave and obtain a doctor’s note clearing him to return to full-time work.
- Lopez never provided the medical clearance and did not return; he alleges he was discriminated against based on a perceived disability and unlawfully terminated.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court granted their motions and denied Lopez’s cross-motion. Lopez appealed the dismissal of ADA and NYCHRL discrimination claims.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo, applying McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting for ADA claims, and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring a doctor’s note to return to work unlawfully discriminated on basis of perceived disability under the ADA/NYCHRL | Lopez: requirement to obtain medical clearance after disclosing possible hepatitis was discriminatory and pretext for unlawful termination | Defendants: requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory safety measure to prevent disease transmission; Lopez may have abandoned job | Court: Affirmed for defendants — even assuming prima facie case, defendants offered legitimate reason and Lopez presented no evidence of pretext |
| Whether the medical-clearance request constituted a prohibited medical inquiry under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) | Lopez: requiring physician clearance was an unlawful medical inquiry | Defendants: the requested clearance did not tend to reveal a disability and therefore was not a prohibited inquiry | Court: Held the request would not tend to reveal a disability; claim fails |
| Whether Lopez was in fact terminated versus abandoned his job (relevant to prima facie case) | Lopez: treated as terminated/discriminated against after being told to get clearance | Defendants: evidence supports that Lopez did not return and may have abandoned position | Court: Noting ambiguity, court assumed arguendo a prima facie case but found no pretext to overcome defendants’ legitimate reason |
| Whether NYCHRL claim requires separate analysis | Lopez: brought parallel NYCHRL claim | Defendants: district court disposed of claim | Court: Lopez abandoned separate NYCHRL challenge by failing to brief it; federal analysis dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and claim-construction principles)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (ADA analysis reference)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (discussing ADA and "direct threat" concept)
- Conroy v. N.Y. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (medical-inquiry analysis under ADA)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL claims analyzed separately from federal claims)
- United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (argument-abandonment rule for appellate briefing)