80 F.4th 111
2d Cir.2023Background
- Kim Tafolla was a Clerk Typist in the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office SIB whose duties included general secretarial work and archiving closed case files (moving files, entering data into a database).
- After a 2013 car accident she submitted medical notes restricting lifting, bending, twisting, and pushing (including a five‑pound lifting limit) and requested that others handle archiving.
- SIB Chief Carroll and HR/Risk Management responded: Carroll limited her to handling items under five pounds; HR and Division Chief Heilig issued a memorandum reiterating a five‑pound restriction and stating the County has no "light duty" assignments and that employees unable to perform duties must go on medical leave.
- Tafolla contends the medical notes barred bending/pushing regardless of weight, that defendants mocked and pressured her, and that she was effectively forced onto medical leave and later terminated after a year on leave under NY Civil Service rules.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on ADA and NYSHRL failure‑to‑accommodate and retaliation claims; Tafolla appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of her Section 1983/Monell claim (abandoned on appeal), vacated summary judgment on the accommodation and retaliation claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether archiving was an essential function of Tafolla’s Clerk Typist job | Archiving was marginal and could be allocated to other staff; not essential | Archiving is part of the job duties and necessary | Genuinely disputed facts exist; summary judgment inappropriate on essential‑function question |
| Whether defendants provided the reasonable accommodation requested / who broke down the interactive process | Medical notes barred bending/pushing regardless of weight; defendants refused that accommodation and ended the interactive process | Defendants provided the accommodation (five‑pound limit) and any breakdown was plaintiff’s fault | Material fact disputes about the scope of medical restrictions and whether employer terminated the interactive process; summary judgment improper |
| Whether defendants retaliated by forcing Tafolla onto medical leave (causation/adverse action) | HR/Heilig memo and Carroll’s statements forced leave shortly after accommodation requests, causing eventual termination | The response merely applied medical restrictions consistent with doctor’s note; not an adverse, retaliatory action | Temporal proximity and disputed facts create triable issues on causation and adverse action; summary judgment improper |
| Section 1983 (Monell) claim against County | Alleged municipal policy/practice caused ADA/NYSHRL violations | District court found no evidence of unlawful policy; plaintiff raised no appellate challenge | Affirmed (plaintiff abandoned the argument on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prod. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.) (elements of ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.) (how to assess essential functions and inferences at summary judgment)
- Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.) (definition of "essential functions" under ADA regs)
- Rodal v. Anesthesia Grp. of Onondaga, P.C., 369 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.) (totality of circumstances test for essential functions)
- Parker v. Sony Pictures Ent., Inc., 260 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.) (employee responsibility in interactive process; breakdown may be fatal if employee at fault)
- Natofsky v. City of New York, 921 F.3d 337 (2d Cir.) (elements and causation standard for ADA retaliation)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.) (temporal proximity as evidentiary support for causation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse action standard and what may dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. EEOC, 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir.) (interactive process examined as whole; employer’s failure to engage can produce liability)