659 F.Supp.3d 264
N.D.N.Y.2023Background
- Sharikov worked for Philips as an MR Global Support Specialist from 2016 until February 2022 and challenged Philips’ COVID-19 workplace policies (masking, daily screening, vaccination attestation, testing, and workspace access rules).
- From 2020–2022 Philips circulated company-wide emails and signs implementing masking, screening, vaccination attestation via an online portal, and a vaccination mandate with deadlines and an exemption process.
- Sharikov repeatedly complained to HR, filed an internal “Speak Up” report (Dec. 9, 2021) and an EEOC charge (Dec. 10, 2021), asserting Philips regarded him as disabled, coerced medical interventions, and retaliated against him for asserting ADA rights.
- Philips informed unvaccinated employees to seek medical/religious exemptions or be treated as voluntarily quitting; Sharikov remained unvaccinated and was removed from employment effective Feb. 4, 2022; Philips reportedly recorded his separation as a resignation.
- Sharikov sued pro se asserting ADA discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and breach of contract. Philips moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Sharikov sought leave to amend. The court considered the proposed amended complaint and dismissed the ADA claims with prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims (dismissed without prejudice), denied amendment as futile, and denied Sharikov’s motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Philips "regarded as" Sharikov having a disability under the ADA | Sharikov: Philips treated him as infectious/immune‑suppressed by labeling him unvaccinated and segregating access. | Philips: Treating employees as potentially infectious is not regarding them as disabled; any perception of COVID would be transitory. | Dismissed — allegations fail to plausibly show Philips perceived a non‑transitory impairment or regarded him as disabled. |
| Whether Philips made a "record of" a disability by documenting vaccination status | Sharikov: Recording vaccination status equals creating a record/misclassification of impairment. | Philips: Recording vaccination status under a neutral policy is not making a record of a disability. | Dismissed — no plausible allegation that Philips misclassified him as having an impairment that substantially limited major life activities. |
| ADA discrimination: adverse action and causation (but‑for) | Sharikov: Termination, segregation, emails, and threats to VISA were adverse actions taken because he was regarded as disabled. | Philips: COVID policy applied uniformly; termination resulted from noncompliance with a preexisting policy, not disability. | Dismissed — termination and other actions lack plausible discriminatory (but‑for) causal link to a disability. |
| ADA retaliation: protected activity, adverse action, and causation | Sharikov: Internal complaints, Speak Up report, and EEOC charge were protected; subsequent actions (including termination) were retaliatory. | Philips: Policies were lawful and predated complaints; actions flowed from neutral enforcement rather than retaliation. | Dismissed — although protected activity was alleged, there is no plausible causal connection (timing and preexisting policy defeat retaliation claim). |
| ADA medical inquiries/exams and confidentiality (business necessity) | Sharikov: Vaccine attestation, daily screening, temperature checks, and testing were impermissible disability‑related inquiries and breached confidentiality. | Philips: These measures were job‑related and consistent with business necessity to prevent workplace COVID spread; EEOC guidance supports such measures. | Dismissed — the face of the complaint shows job‑related, business‑necessary measures; no plausible confidentiality breach alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pettaway v. Nat’l Recovery Sols., LLC, 955 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2020) (courts may consider a pending motion to dismiss on the merits in light of a proposed amended complaint)
- Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (amendment is futile if proposed claim could not survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must allege plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of elements)
- Conroy v. N.Y.S. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (medical‑inquiry/exam restriction and high ‘‘business necessity’’ standard)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation framework and broader adverse‑action standard for retaliation claims)
- Natofsky v. City of New York, 921 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2019) (ADA discrimination requires but‑for causation)
- Equal Emp. Opp’y Comm’n v. STME, LLC, 938 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2019) (employer’s perception of potential future illness is not an ADA disability)
- Hamilton v. Westchester Cnty., 3 F.4th 86 (2d Cir. 2021) (treats ‘‘record of’’ disability and transitory impairments in ADA analysis)
- Davis v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 804 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2015) (termination constitutes a materially adverse change in employment)