The New York City Department of Sanitation [DSNY] terminated an employee [Plaintiff] after he was found to be "medically disqualified" for his position. Plaintiff challenged DSNY's action but Supreme Court granted DSNY's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Article 78 petition. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.
The Appellate Division said that DSNY had demonstrated that their finding that Plaintiff was medically disqualified for the position of sanitation worker due to his medical condition was not discriminatory under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws [HRLs] "because no reasonable accommodation would enable [Plaintiff] to perform the duties of the position safely and effectively".
The Appellate Division noted that although Plaintiff did not request any specific accommodation of his disability until commencing this litigation, both the State and City HRLs required an employer "to engage in an interactive dialogue regarding possible accommodations once they became aware of [an employee's disability], citing Executive Law §296[3][a]; 9 NYCRR 466.11[j][4]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[15][a]; and Estate of Benitez v City of New York, 193 AD3d 42, leave to appeal denied 37 NY3d 906. The Appellate Division also noted the DSNY engaged a dialogue with the Plaintiff during the internal appeals process.
Following an individualized examination of plaintiff, DSNY's medical director considered and rejected a possible accommodation, the use of gloves, explaining that the "use of gloves will only exacerbate [Plaintiff's] condition" and Plaintiff's condition would prohibit him from performing the duties of a sanitation worker even with continued treatment, due to the nature of his disability, which was a chronic condition, because the duties of a sanitation worker, which involve exposure to germs and chemicals, would "render treatment ineffective" and make Plaintiff vulnerable to infection.
Citing Matter of Altieri v City of N.Y. Civ. Serv. Commn., 57 AD3d 248, [leave to appeal denied, 12 NY3d 711], the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's submissions "from his treating physician did not create an issue of fact rebutting these findings, and DSNY was entitled to rely on the opinion of its medical director even in the presence of [Plaintiff's] physician's conflicting opinion".
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.