999 F. Supp. 2d 629
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Farrell Sacks, pro se, sues Gandhi Engineering under Title VII, ADEA, and ADA for termination and failure to hire.
- Plaintiff worked Sept 7, 2010 to Oct 22, 2010 as a Senior Inspector on the DOT’s 149th Street Bridge project.
- Defendant contends Plaintiff was terminated for poor performance; Plaintiff alleges termination due to age, religion, and perceived disability (agility).
- Plaintiff has not been diagnosed with a disability and did not inform Defendant of any disability or accommodation needs.
- ADAAA-era standard for perceived disability applies; plaintiff argues DOT perceived a musculoskeletal impairment hindering agility.
- Magistrate Judge Freeman’s Report recommended partial granting of summary judgment; district court adopted, granting religion and age claims but denying disability claim; discovery issues arose regarding DOT records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Religious discrimination prima facie case viability | Sacks alleges discrimination based on religion (non-Hindu replacement). | Religion not known to Gandhi; no records; replacement by non-Hindu not proven; no prima facie case. | Religion claim dismissed; no prima facie case established. |
| Age discrimination prima facie case viability | Plaintiff was replaced by younger employee; statistics suggest age bias. | Evidence insufficient; no reliable age-based replacement or admissible statistics. | Age claim granted summary judgment for defendant. |
| Disability discrimination prima facie case under ADA/ADAAA | Agility/perceived lack of agility constitutes a perceived disability under ADAAA; termination linked to this perception. | Agility not a disability; no evidence of employer perceiving impairment; legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination. | Plaintiff establishes prima facie case of perceived disability; triable issue on pretext remains. |
| Pretext evidence sufficiency for disability claim | Ghandi’s and Passaro’s changing reasons indicate pretext; inconsistent statements support discrimination claim. | Variations are lacks of credibility; not enough to show pretext. | Evidence construed to raise triable issues on pretext; disability claim not dismissed at summary judgment. |
| Whether discovery issues affect denial of disability claim | Need inspector reports and DOT records to respond; request for extension granted/dismissed variably. | No Rule 56(d) affidavit; discovery extensions denied; no reopenings. | Court did not reopen discovery; disposition based on existing record; disability claim survives summary-judgment analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.2001) (McDonnell Douglas applied to age discrimination)
- Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.2000) (prima facie framework in discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext and burden-shifting after prima facie case)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (burden shifting and ultimate burden on plaintiff)
- Hilton v. Wright, 673 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.2012) (ADAAA per se per se standards for perceived disability)
- Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989 (2d Cir.1985) (statistical proof requirements in discrimination claims)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir.2000) (discrimination proof and pretext framework)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir.1994) (discrimination claims can be dismissed on summary judgment when no genuine issues of material fact)
- Cardo v. Arlington Central School Dist., 473 F.App’x 21 (2d Cir.2012) (pre-ADAAA standard for perceived impairment; not included as official reporter citation in this list)