Natofsky v. City Of New York
921 F.3d 337
| 2d Cir. | 2019Background
- Richard Natofsky, a DOI Director with a severe hearing impairment, was hired in Dec 2012 and demoted in May 2014; he resigned in Dec 2014 after later taking another City job.
- Natofsky warned supervisors about his hearing limitations; he used hearing aids and needed speakers to face him and to read lips.
- After a mayoral administration change, new DOI leadership (Peters and Pogoda) criticized Natofsky's performance; Ulon (his direct supervisor) issued a negative evaluation and counseling memo.
- Pogoda reportedly reacted poorly when told about Natofsky’s disability; Peters executed the demotion (salary cut then partially restored by DCAS review).
- Natofsky sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (employment discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation) and state/local counterparts; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed but (1) clarified that § 794(d) imports the ADA causation standard into employment discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act and (2) held the ADA requires but-for causation for employment-discrimination claims, and Natofsky failed to show but-for causation for any adverse action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable causation standard for Rehabilitation Act employment claims | §794(d) imports the ADA standard and that standard allows mixed-motive (motivating-factor) liability (per Parker) | ADA requires but-for causation after Gross and Nassar; §794(d) does not preserve a motivating-factor rule | §794(d) incorporates ADA standards, but ADA requires but-for causation for employment-discrimination claims; mixed-motive does not apply |
| Whether demotion was discriminatory (causation) | Demotion was motivated by Natofsky’s disability; Pogoda’s animus can be imputed to Peters (Cat’s Paw) | Demotion was based on documented performance problems and reorganization; Natofsky cannot show demotion would not have occurred but for disability | Even assuming Cat’s Paw, evidence shows legitimate performance/reorg reasons; Natofsky failed to prove but-for causation — summary judgment affirmed |
| Failure-to-accommodate claim | DOI failed to provide simple accommodation (secretary alerts) that would have prevented performance issues leading to adverse actions | No connection shown between accommodation failure, performance critiques, and demotion; no evidence Ulon’s review referenced missed meeting emails | Plaintiff failed to show (a) accommodation would have remedied the performance issues and (b) link to demotion — summary judgment affirmed |
| Retaliation claims | Various complaints and appeals (to Hearn, DCAS, email protests) were protected and caused adverse actions (negative review, demotion, cubicle move, delay in pay) | Appeals/complaints did not clearly invoke discrimination; temporal and evidentiary links are insufficient to show causation | Appeals/emails were not shown to be protected protests of discrimination or lacked causal proximity; retaliation claims fail — summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (but-for causation required under ADEA)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation for retaliation claims)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. mixed-motive treatment of ADA claims pre-Gross)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (Cat’s Paw theory: subordinate’s bias can be imputed to decisionmaker in mixed-motive context)
- Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Serv., 835 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. discussion of Cat’s Paw liability)
- McElwee v. County of Orange, 700 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. standard for viewing facts on summary judgment)
- Eng v. New York Hosp., 199 F.3d 1322 (Rule 10(e) on supplementing the appellate record)