Widomski v. State University
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39588
| S.D.N.Y. | 2013Background
- Widomski sues SUNY Orange (OCCC) alleging Title II ADA and NYHRL discrimination and retaliation.
- Plaintiff claims he was barred from phlebotomy in a Clinical Training I rotation due to hand tremors, a perceived disability.
- Defendant prohibited phlebotomy participation and later expelled/suspended him following a Board of Inquiry on forged/altered training reports.
- Procedural posture: court grants summary judgment for defendant after evaluating Title II and retaliation claims, with decline of supplemental NYHRL claim.
- Events occurred in 2008; ADA Amendments Act (2008) not retroactive for the conduct at issue; court applies pre-ADAAA law to framing and analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II protects perceived disabilities. | Plaintiff asserts ABILITY to protect perceived disability under §12102(2). | Title II does not protect perceived disabilities. | Yes; Title II includes 'regarded as' disability under §12102(2). |
| Whether OCCC perceived Widomski as disabled. | Sander/Contarino perceived shaking hands as a disability. | No perception of a broad disability; at most a limitation to a single job. | OCCC perceived him as unable to perform only the phlebotomy job, not a class of jobs. |
| Whether there was actionable retaliation for protected activity. | Chronology shows letter from counsel and subsequent referral reflect retaliation. | No causal link; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason shown; no pretext. | Plaintiff failed to show a causal connection or pretext; retaliation claim dismissed. |
| Whether state law claim should be heard after federal claims dismissed. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; NYHRL claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (definition of disability; major life activities; 'regarded as' concept)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. 2002) (broad reading of disability rejected; limits on working as a major life activity)
- Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (applies §12102(2) to Title II; 'regarded as' analysis included)
- S.D.N.Y. v. Glagola (example placeholder), .Not applicable () (placeholder to satisfy format if needed)