949 F.3d 89
2d Cir.2020Background
- Ronald Woolf, a former Bloomberg L.P. employee, sued Bloomberg and supervisors under the ADA, FMLA, and Title VII, alleging work-induced migraines, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and FMLA interference.
- The U.S. District Court for the S.D.N.Y. granted summary judgment to Bloomberg (Mar. 8, 2019) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.
- The Second Circuit simultaneously issued a per curiam opinion rejecting Woolf’s argument that his migraines substantially limited the major life activity of working.
- Assuming arguendo Woolf was disabled, the court held he failed to identify a suitable, vacant position to which he could have been transferred (failure-to-accommodate).
- The courts concluded Bloomberg’s stated reason for discipline and termination—a lengthy record of performance deficiencies and progressive discipline predating protected activity—was not shown to be pretextual for retaliation claims.
- On the FMLA interference claim, all leave requests were granted and supervisors encouraged leave; there was no evidence of discouragement or penalty, so the interference claim failed (and the firing claim was duplicative of retaliation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether migraines substantially limit a major life activity (working) under the ADA | Woolf: migraines caused vision, speech, concentration problems and substantially limited working | Bloomberg: migraines do not substantially limit major life activities; plaintiff not disabled | Second Circuit (per curiam): rejected Woolf’s claim that migraines substantially limit working |
| ADA failure-to-accommodate (transfer/requested accommodation) | Woolf: needed accommodation due to migraines caused by supervisors | Bloomberg: no reasonable accommodation available; no vacant suitable position for transfer | Court: even assuming disability, Woolf failed to identify a qualified, open position; no prima facie case |
| Retaliation under ADA, FMLA, Title VII | Woolf: adverse actions followed protected accommodation/FMLA/EEOC activity, creating causal link | Bloomberg: adverse actions were due to long-standing performance problems and progressive discipline that began before protected activity | Court: employer articulated legitimate reasons; Woolf failed to show pretext; retaliation claims dismissed |
| FMLA interference | Woolf: employer interfered with right to take FMLA leave; firing on day leave granted was interference | Bloomberg: all leave requests were granted; supervisors encouraged leave; no discouragement or penalty | Court: no interference—leave granted and no evidence of penalty; firing claim duplicative and meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements for ADA failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Pippins v. KPMG, LLP, 759 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
- Trikona Advisers Ltd. v. Chugh, 846 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2017) (district court may be affirmed on any ground fairly supported by the record)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (employee must identify a vacant position for transfer accommodation)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (prima facie framework for retaliation claims)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (timing alone insufficient where adverse actions predate protected activity)
- Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016) (elements and burden-shifting for FMLA interference claim)