2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87694
E.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Rinaldi was a payroll manager for a Quality King subsidiary who processed weekly payroll and had tight, fixed deadlines; regular attendance was an essential job requirement.
- She took approved FMLA leave for depression from March 17–April 25, 2011, and Quality King paid her during most of that leave.
- After returning, Rinaldi had ten absences between May 13 and July 29, 2011 (eight unexcused), and was placed on a 90‑day probation on July 29, 2011 warning that any further absence could lead to termination.
- While on/after probation she took additional short FMLA leave in August 2011 (with notice and an offer to take more), declined a proposed reduced schedule accommodation, and later missed two days in October 2011 with a doctor’s note.
- Quality King terminated Rinaldi on October 31, 2011 for violating the probation attendance terms. Rinaldi sued under the ADA, NYSHRL, and FMLA (interference and retaliation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA / NYSHRL disability discrimination (qualified individual & reasonable accommodation) | Rinaldi was disabled (depression) and termination was due to disability; employer failed to accommodate | Excessive, unpredictable absenteeism made Rinaldi unable to perform essential job functions; employer offered accommodations (more FMLA, reduced hours) which she refused | Court: Judgment for Quality King — Rinaldi not a qualified individual because attendance is an essential function and she never proposed/accepted a reasonable accommodation that would address unpredictable absences |
| FMLA interference (discouragement from taking intermittent leave) | Lancaster discouraged intermittent use of accrued FMLA | Quality King granted Rinaldi FMLA leave (March–April), granted additional leave in August, and offered more leave — it did not discourage use | Court: Dismissed interference claim — a reasonable employee would not have been dissuaded given employer’s approvals and offers of leave |
| FMLA retaliation (termination for taking FMLA) | Termination was at least in part because of prior FMLA absences | Termination resulted from absenteeism and probation violations, not FMLA; gap in time undercuts causation; final absences did not involve a serious health condition under FMLA | Court: Dismissed retaliation claim — plaintiff abandoned argument and cannot show causal link or prima facie case |
| Procedural: summary judgment standard / burden shifting | N/A | N/A | Court: Applied McDonnell Douglas framework; granted defendant’s summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross‑motion |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (when employer offers legitimate reason, plaintiff must show pretext)
- McElwee v. County of Orange, 700 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2012) (employee’s duty to request accommodation and burden shifting on reasonableness)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., Inc., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (ADA accommodation principles)
- Lewis v. New York City Police Dep’t, 908 F. Supp. 2d 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (chronic absenteeism can render an employee unqualified under the ADA)