On March 27, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals reversed a New York Appellate Division decision in Jacobsen v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. by holding that an employer is generally precluded from obtaining summary judgment on a disability claim under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws unless it can show that it engaged in a good faith “interactive process” regarding the feasibility of the employee’s requested accommodation at the time of the employee’s request.
Jacobsen v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. arose from claims of disability discrimination brought by William Jacobsen, a New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (“HHC”) Assistant Health Facilities Planner. In this role, Jacobsen was required to occasionally make visits to construction sites within the Manhattan area hospital network to which he was assigned while also working at HHC’s central office located in Manhattan. After being diagnosed with a form of pulmonary dysfunction in June 2005, the Plaintiff was reassigned by HHC wherein he would be required to make more frequent visits to construction sites requiring extensive renovations and asbestos abatement. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was re-diagnosed in September 2005 with pneumonconiosis, an occupational lung disease caused by repeated and prolonged inhalation of asbestos or other dust particles. After taking requested medical leave of absence, the Plaintiff requested to be transferred back to his previous work location at HHC’s central office in Manhattan, where he would not be required to spend as much time visiting construction sites. The Defendant denied the Plaintiffs request and provided very limited evidence as to whether or not they actively considered the request. After the Plaintiff’s condition worsened, he was terminated in March 2007 due to the fact he could no longer perform the essential functions of his job.
The Defendants motion for summary judgment was granted by the NY Supreme Court and was later affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Division as the court stated “HHC established that plaintiff could not, even with a reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of his job”. More specifically, the court noted that HHC had engaged in a “good faith interactive process” because HHC had inquired with the Plaintiffs doctor regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to work and also kept his job open during his medical leave absence.
The decision was eventually appealed to the New York Court of Appeal where the Appellate Division decision was reversed in part, as the court held that HHC was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff’s State and City Human Rights Law claims. In so holding, the court stated:
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to HHC on plaintiff’s City HRL claim because the evidence warranted a trial on HHC’s ability to have reasonably accommodated plaintiff’s impairment by reassigning him to its central office in Manhattan… The Plaintiff’s State HRL Claim should have survived summary judgment [as well] because at that pretrial state, HHC still bore the burden of establishing that, as a matter of law, plaintiff did not have a statutorily covered disability for which a reasonable accommodation had been available… Indeed, an employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate a worker’s disability as soon as the employer learns of that condition is the very societal ill which the relevant anti-discrimination statutes were designed to combat.
The Employment Lawyers at Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP have successfully represented many service workers for discriminatory conduct based upon their disability, sexual orientation, religion, age, sex and race. If you have ever been discriminated against based upon your disability, sexual orientation, religion, age, sex or race, please contact the lawyers at Fitapelli & Schaffer, (212) 300-0375, to schedule a free consultation – you may be entitled to receive compensation for your emotional distress, punitive damages and more.