Parada v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A.
753 F.3d 62
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Parada, a Senior Letters of Credit Specialist at Banco Industrial de Venezuela (BIV), had a largely sedentary role and regularly worked overtime.
- In 2007 she suffered a back injury requiring her to avoid prolonged sitting and to stand, ice, and take breaks during the day.
- Parada repeatedly requested an ergonomic chair and accommodation for prolonged sitting, but BIV did not provide it.
- She began a lengthy dispute over the extent of her disability, leave duration, and medical documentation; she received short-term disability benefits then was terminated in May 2008 for abandonment after no continued contact.
- Parada later sought overtime pay, and the DOL investigated BIV’s overtime classification, resulting in a partial overtime determination but no penalties.
- The district court granted summary judgment on ADA discrimination (forbidding a categorical rule), retaliation under the ADA, and FLSA overtime claim based on statute of limitations; NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims were dismissed and later addressed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inability to sit for long periods is a disability under the ADA | Parada argues prolonged sitting impairment can be a substantial limitation. | BIV argues Colwell precludes a substantial limitation from sitting duration. | Inability to sit prolonged may be a disability under totality of circumstances. |
| Whether the district court properly converted the motion to summary judgment | Parada argues improper conversion without adequate notice to pro se plaintiff. | Bank contends notice was adequate and evidence was in plaintiff’s possession. | Conversion was proper; notice given and record supported summary judgment on the ADA claim to be reconsidered on remand. |
| Whether Parada’s ADA retaliation claim was properly dismissed | Aruges timing shows causation between requests for accommodation and termination. | Temporal proximity insufficient; letters of reprimand not argued as adverse action. | Retaliation claim affirmed as to dismissal; argument regarding reprimand abandoned. |
| Whether Parada’s FLSA claim is timely and whether willfulness tolled limitations | Equitable tolling due to DOL review and alleged willfulness extend limitations. | No tolling; no willful violation shown; misclassification not willful. | FLSA claim dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds; no willfulness proven. |
| Whether the NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims should be decided upon remand | ADA vacatur requires reconsideration of analogous state law claims. | Claims should be addressed with ADA disposition on remand. | Remanded for consideration of state and city law claims consistent with ADA ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 158 F.3d 635 (2d Cir.1998) (limits on ‘substantial impairment’ in sitting analysis disfavored as categorical rule)
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.2013) (ADF substantial limitation inquiry to be fact-specific)
- Picinich v. United Parcel Serv., 321 F.Supp.2d 485 (N.D.N.Y.2004) (inability to sit for prolonged periods may be substantially limiting)
- Reich v. Waldbaum, Inc., 52 F.3d 35 (2d Cir.1995) (willfulness for FLSA limitations requires knowing or reckless disregard)
- Brown v. Parkchester South Condominiums, 287 F.3d 58 (2d Cir.2002) (equitable tolling analysis in similar disability/claims context)