In an action to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL], Plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court's order granting the City of Yonker's [Employer] motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, on the law, with costs, and the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint was denied.
Plaintiff, employed in the Employer's Department of Public Works [DPW] and was assigned to work in sanitation immediately before being placed on an authorized leave of absence without pay. Plaintiff requested assignment as a custodian at another location, one of the City's senior citizens centers, in consideration of his disability psoriatic arthritis as a reasonable accommodation of his disability.
Employer told Plaintiff that it was currently unable to provide the requested accommodation as approving the request would require the Plaintiff to be "permanently excused from performing the essential functions of his position".
The Appellate Division, noting that NYSHRL prohibits discrimination in employment based on, among other grounds, disability, observed "if a reasonable accommodation would permit the employee to perform the essential functions of the employee's position, the employee has a 'disability' within the meaning of the statute, and the employer cannot disadvantage the employee based on that disability".
Observing that reasonable accommodations include "reassignment to an available position", the Appellate Division opined that an employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim based on disability pursuant to NYSHRL "unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation," and the employer cannot present such a record "if the employer has not engaged in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of the employee's request".
To prevail on a summary judgment motion with respect to a claim pursuant to NYSHRL, the Appellate Division noted:
1. The employer must show that it engaged in a good-faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the disabled individual;
2. The employer has a duty to move forward to consider accommodation once the need for accommodation is known or requested;
3. The Employer must establish, prima facie, that it engaged in a good-faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the plaintiff"; and
4. The Employer's consideration of the reasonableness of the employee's requested accommodation.
The Appellate Division said the Employer relied on the deposition testimony and affidavit of the DPW's Commissioner, who denied the Plaintiff's request for an accommodation.
However, the court noted that there was no evidence in the record that the Commissioner was aware of Plaintiff's condition when he made his decision; or that the Commissioner considered the accommodation that the Plaintiff was requesting -- reassignment to the position of a custodian at one of the City's senior citizens centers;
The Commissioner, however, had testified:
a. He had not met with the Plaintiff to discuss his request for an accommodation;
b. He did not know that the Plaintiff's request for an accommodation involved psoriatic arthritis;
c. He did not know the limitations typically associated with that condition; and
d. He did not speak with the Plaintiff's physician and that he did not recall reviewing any of the information that the physician provided to the City.
Accordingly, opined the Appellate Division, the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint should have been denied by Supreme Court "without regard to the sufficiency of the [Plaintiff's] opposition papers".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.