In an action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL], Plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court order granting the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision "on the law, with costs", and denied the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff, a custodial worker, requested reassignment to a custodial position in one of the Employer's senior citizens centers as a reasonable accommodation of his disability. In response to the Plaintiff's request, Employer told Plaintiff "it was currently unable to provide the requested accommodation, as [granting] the request would require the [Plaintiff] to be permanently excused from performing the essential functions of his position".
Citing Executive Law §296[a], the Appellate Division observed that the NYSHRL prohibits discrimination in employment based on, among considerations, disability. In particular the Appellate Division noted that if a reasonable accommodation would permit the employee to perform the essential functions of the employee's position and the employee has a disability' within the meaning of the statute, "the employer cannot disadvantage the employee based on that disability".
As a reasonable accommodations includes "reassignment to an available position", 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".
In this instance the Employer failed to establish, prima facie, that it engaged in a good-faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the Plaintiff and the reasonableness of his requested accommodation.
In the words of the court, "There is no evidence in the record that the [Employer] was aware of the [Plaintiff's] condition when [it] made [the] determination or that the [Employer] considered the accommodation that the [Plaintiff] was requesting to be reassigned to the position of a custodian at one of the [Employer's] senior citizens centers".
In particular, the Appellate Division noted the record showed:
1. The Employer testified that he had no memory of meeting with the Plaintiff to discuss his request for an accommodation;
2. The Employer testified that he did not know that the Plaintiff's request for an accommodation concerned psoriatic arthritis;
3. The Employer did not know the limitations typically associated with that condition;
4. The Employer did not know the limitations that the condition allegedly caused the Plaintiff to suffer; and
5. The Employer testified that he did not speak with the Plaintiff's physician and did not recall reviewing any of the information that the physician provided to the Employer concerning the Plaintiff.
According, the Appellate Division held that the Employer'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.