1:23-cv-03954
E.D.N.YDec 20, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Luciano Russo and George Messiha, longtime dispatchers for National Grid, requested remote work accommodations due to disabilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Both were allowed to work remotely during early pandemic lockdowns, but National Grid ended these accommodations as restrictions eased, requiring in-person attendance.
- Plaintiffs allege that returning to in-person work posed significant health risks given their medical conditions and that they could perform all essential job functions remotely.
- National Grid contends that in-person attendance is essential to the dispatcher roles due to public safety concerns and operational needs, citing occasional technical issues during remote work.
- After remote accommodations ceased, both plaintiffs were put on paid sick leave, later stopped receiving pay, and were either not allowed back to work or returned only once medically cleared for in-person work.
- Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on failure to accommodate claims under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is in-person attendance an essential function of the dispatcher job? | Plaintiffs: In-person presence not essential; performed all duties remotely during pandemic. | National Grid: In-person is essential due to public safety, connectivity, and operational reasons. | Material facts in dispute; summary judgment denied. |
| Did National Grid refuse to make a reasonable accommodation? | Plaintiffs: Remote work is a reasonable and effective accommodation. | National Grid: Remote work causes safety & operational risks; Greenpoint center offered as alternative. | Material facts in dispute; summary judgment denied. |
| Does the ADA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL require accommodation for plaintiffs? | Plaintiffs: Qualify for protection, met requirements for accommodation. | National Grid: Accommodation not required as remote work isn’t reasonable. | Genuine factual issues prevent summary judgment. |
| Are factual disputes present such that summary judgment is inappropriate? | Plaintiffs: Sufficient undisputed facts to grant summary judgment. | National Grid: Disputes on performance, job requirements, safety. | Factual disputes present; summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (employer's judgment on essential functions is entitled to deference but is subject to fact-specific inquiry)
- Shannon v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 332 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2003) (nature of essential job functions and their relationship to accommodations)
- Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997) (factors for establishing essential job functions)
- D’Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 1998) (public safety as a factor in determining essential job functions)
- Tafolla v. Heilig, 80 F.4th 111 (2d Cir. 2023) (totality of circumstances in assessing essential functions)