Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Employer has the burden of proving an individual cannot perform the essential functions of the position regardless of any reasonable accommodation provided




Employer has the burden of proving an individual cannot perform the essential functions of the position regardless of any reasonable accommodation provided
2015 NY Slip Op 03465, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted the New York City’s Department of Sanitation’s [DOS] motion to dismiss the Article 78 petition filed by an applicant [Applicant] for employment with DOS alleging “disability-based” unlawful discrimination “for failure to state a cause of action.”

Applicant appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling.

Applicant claimed that DOS refused to hire him, notwithstanding he otherwise proved qualified for employment as a sanitation worker based solely on his having a psoriasis condition on his hands. This said the court “makes out causes of action for disability-based discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.”

The State Human Rights Law required Applicant to plead that he could perform the essential functions of the job if he were afforded reasonable accommodation. Here, said the Appellate Division, Applicant’s complaint alleged that gloves would have constituted a sufficient accommodation to enable him to perform the work satisfied this requirement.

The court then explained that whether DOS was justified in considering Applicant’s psoriasis disqualified him for the position “on the grounds that the condition would have prevented him from performing the essential functions of the position" and “no accommodation (including gloves) would have obviated the interference” cannot be determined from the face of the complaint and the documentary exhibits annexed to it.

Although DOS had submitted evidence in support of its motion tending to show that Applicant's condition rendered him incapable of performing the job of a sanitation worker, its motion was not one seeking summary judgment and thus Supreme Court should have denied its motion to dismiss Applicant’s petition.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Handbooks focusing on State and Municipal Public Personnel Law continue to be available for purchase via the links provided below:

The Discipline Book at http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

Challenging Adverse Personnel Decisions at http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com

The Disability Benefits E-book: at http://section207.blogspot.com/

Layoff, Preferred Lists at http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/

Caution:

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that the publisher is not providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader should seek such advice from a competent professional.

Items published in NYPPL may not be used for commercial purposes without prior written permission to copy and distribute such material. Send your request via e-mail to publications@nycap.rr.com

Copyright© 1987 - 2017 by the Public Employment Law Press.



___________________



N.B. From time to time a political ad or endorsement may appear in the sidebar of this Blog. NYPPL does not have any control over such posting.

_____________________

.