Sherman v. County of Suffolk
71 F. Supp. 3d 332
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiff Steven Sherman filed suit May 26, 2011 against Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, and individual Defendants alleging ADA, ADEA, and NYSHRL claims; an amended complaint on Oct. 26, 2011 added § 1983 claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 after discovery (Mar. 27, 2014), with the court granting in part and denying in part.
- Sherman began as a Correction Officer I in Jan. 2010; during training he injured his left knee on Jan. 27, 2010 while performing the Mountain Climber and later required physical therapy.
- Following the injury, Sherman received medical guidance and was accommodated (elevator use, extra training) but remained on a challenging path to complete Academy requirements; he ultimately received a graduation badge only after extensions and continued light duty.
- Sherman filed an internal discrimination complaint on Mar. 22, 2010, which he withdrew Mar. 26, 2010, and later indicated the situation was resolved in a letter dated Apr. 8, 2010.
- He was terminated Oct. 7, 2010, after evaluations described as minimally acceptable; post-termination, Sherman underwent antidepressant treatment and later found new employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA individual liability | Sherman argues individual Defendants violated the ADA. | Individuals cannot be liable under the ADA. | No individual liability; ADA claims against individuals dismissed. |
| ADA discrimination against Suffolk County | Sherman suffered disability-based discrimination or was regarded as disabled. | No disability or qualified impairment; no adverse action linked to disability. | Genuine issue precludes summary judgment; discrimination claim survives against Suffolk County. |
| ADA retaliation against Suffolk County | Termination and adverse actions were retaliation for protected ADA activity. | No retaliation; actions were based on performance evaluations. | Retaliation claim survives; genuine issue of material fact remains. |
| Section 1983 claims against individual Defendants | Individual defendants violated constitutional rights under color of law. | No personal involvement by individuals; Monell issues for municipality. | Granted; §1983 claims against individual Defendants dismissed; Monell claims against Suffolk County dismissed. |
| NYSHRL state-law claims | Disability and age discrimination under NYSHRL exist alongside federal claims. | If federal claims fail, supplemental jurisdiction should be declined. | NYSHRL claims survive against all Defendants except the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department; court declines to entertain certain reply-based arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir.1995) (individuals not liable under Title VII (and ADA) as employers)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir.2000) (disability may be a motivating factor; not sole cause for action under ADA as discussed in Parker)
- University of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S.2013) (but-for causation required for Title VII retaliation and related claims)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S.2009) (but-for causation standard for discrimination claims under ADEA/Title VII aligned)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (U.S.2008) (class-of-one equal protection no longer applicable in public employment contexts)
- White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S.2006) (retaliation claim scope includes actions beyond workplace-related acts)
- Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97 (2d Cir.2014) (Monell background on municipal liability and personal involvement required)