Challenging being medically disqualified for employment in a position

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.

 

New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws each protect nonresidents who are not yet employed in the city or state but who proactively seek an actual city- or state-based job opportunity

Plaintiff, a South Asian-American woman, filed this suit against the Defendant asserting employment discrimination claims. She alleged that she was subjected to discrimination on account of her sex and race while working as a reporter in Defendant's Washington, D.C. bureau. 

In 2018, concluding that she could no longer advance her career in the Washington, D.C. bureau, she "appl[ied] for various positions" at Defendant's New York bureau and expressed interest in an open United Nations reporter position that was ultimately was filled by a man who allegedly had less practical experience than Plaintiff and less formal education. After her managing editor in Washington, D.C. told Plaintiff that Defendant decided not to convert the U.N. job to a " 'diversity slot,' " she understood that she would only be considered for promotions to positions identified as such. 

In June 2018, claiming that she was constructively discharged, Plaintiff informed her team leader and managing editor that she could no longer work for Defendant because of the discrimination that she had encountered and left Defendant's employ. Two years later, Plaintiff, then a California resident, commenced "this class action in New York State court." 

She asserted, among other causes of action, individual claims under the State and City Human Rights Laws, contending that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of sex and race by denying her promotions.

Defendant removed the case to federal court and a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims under both Human Rights Laws. Acknowledging that other cases from the Southern District had reached the opposite conclusion in analogous circumstances, the Second Circuit reserved decision on Plaintiff's appeal and certified the following question to the New York State Court of Appeals:

"Whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement of the New York City Human Rights Law or the New York State Human Rights Law if the plaintiff pleads and later proves that an employer deprived the plaintiff of a New York City- or State-based job opportunity on discriminatory grounds".*  

Given the policy implications involved and the lack of controlling authority, the Second Circuit determined that certification was appropriate,New York State's Court of Appeals accepted the certified question (see 39 NY3d 1061 [2023]), and answered it in the affirmative, noting that the New York City Council and the New York State Legislature have enacted laws banning discrimination, including employment discrimination, from within their geographic boundaries and held "that the New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws each protect nonresidents who are not yet employed in the city or state but who proactively sought an actual city- or state-based job opportunity."

The State Court of Appeals explained that for the purposes of the impact test, a failure to hire or promote case is distinct from a discriminatory termination case.  The plaintiff in Hoffman** was not a New York inhabitant and did not seek to become one. In contrast, a nonresident who engaged in affirmative conduct to obtain an actual job opportunity based in New York City or State sought to become an inhabitant or person within those geographical boundaries "has satisfied the requirement that the alleged discriminatory act had an impact within the boundaries of New York City". In the words of the Court of Appeals, Plaintiff's "rejection from the position denied her the opportunity to work in New York City," thus providing the necessary New York City workplace nexus for her claim of a City Human Rights Law covered injury.

The Court of Appeals opined that the Second Circuit "recognized that a ruling for [Defendant] 'would serve to immunize employers from liability' under the Human Rights Laws 'for discriminatory conduct pertaining to New York City- or State-based jobs' even when the discriminatory conduct has an impact in New York (58 F4th at 71). We cannot conclude that the legislature and city council intended to give New York employers a license to discriminate against nonresident prospective employees and, thus, we may not adopt such a narrow construction of the statutes. Accordingly, the certified question should be answered in the affirmative."

Opinion by Judge Singas. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.

* 58 F4th 64, 71 [2d Cir 2023].

** Hoffman v Parade Publs, 15 NY3d 285.

 

Click HERE to access the decision of the New York Court of Appeals posted on the Internet.

2023 Form 1099-R: Reporting of disability annuity payments to first responders and other disabled taxpayers

The IRS made changes to the 2023 Instructions for Forms 1099-R and 5498 to help clarify how to report disability annuity payments to first responders or other taxpayers on the Form 1099-R.

Revenue Ruling 85-105, 1985-2 C.B. 53 states that disability retirement payments made to a taxpayer - under a workmen’s compensation act or under a statute in the nature of a workmen’s compensation act - as compensation for personal injuries or sickness incurred during the course of employment may not be subject to federal income tax.

A new paragraph was added to the 2023 Instructions: Box 2a, Taxable Amount, now references Rev. Rul. 85-105 to help you determine the taxable and/or non-taxable amount of the disability payments. If the annuity payments are fully non-taxable, there should be a zero in box 2a.

A reference to Rev. Rul. 85-105 was added to the Guide to Distribution Codes: Code 3 – Disability, is used to report the non-taxable part of the disability distribution on the Form 1099-R.