Judge denies former employee's disability claim

• Date: 01 December 2020
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30903

DECEMBER 2020 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

11

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

against her by regularly displaying an unspecied

quote on an ofce computer program that appeared

to be a veiled threat directed at her. She also claimed

he had (1) stated very loudly to the plaintiff’s cow-

orkers that he was being forced to move elsewhere be-

cause of her, (2) accused her of lying and (3) claimed

she was trying to get him red.

The plaintiff complained about the supervisor

again in March 2018 and led a suit when the de-

fendant didn’t respond to her satisfaction.

One of her claims was gender discrimination in

violation of Title VII.

The plaintiff contended she had suffered the

requisite adverse employment action because the

retaliation included being denied the opportunity to

work on a high-prole project.

The defendant led a motion to dismiss, arguing

that selecting somebody else for that particular

assignment wasn’t an adverse employment action

because there was no material diminishment in the

terms of her employment.

The district court judge agreed that the plaintiff

couldn’t succeed with the hostile environment claim

unless she experienced an adverse employment action.

He explained that the term referred to “a materially

adverse change in the terms and conditions of em-

ployment more disruptive than a mere inconvenience

or an alteration of job responsibilities.”

The judge likened the plaintiff’s allegation about

failing to be assigned to a “high prole project” to

be similar to a denial of training opportunities. He

explained that the denial of a professional training

opportunity only amounted to an adverse employ-

ment action when the employee could show some type

of material harm from the denial, such as a failure

to be promoted or the loss of career opportunities.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge ruled that the

plaintiff didn’t allege an adverse employment action

because the failure to obtain a desired or requested

employment assignment alone was insignicant.

He also said the allegations didn’t plausibly suggest

discriminatory intent. Although he guessed that the

plaintiff was claiming that her male colleagues re-

ceived more favorable treatment, he said there were

no allegations of fact to support her belief.

Although he allowed other parts of the suit to

proceed, the judge dismissed the Title VII claim.

[Erno v. New York State Ofce of Information Tech-

nology Services, U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of New York, No. 1:19-CV-1457, 05/26/2020]

Disability

Judge denies former employee’s

disability claim

The plaintiff was an Erie County sheriff’s depart-

ment employee who was granted medical leave in 2015

to care for her terminally ill husband.

When the plaintiff didn’t return to work after her

leave was exhausted, the sheriff’s ofce accused her

of being absent without permission and scheduled

two separate disciplinary hearings concerning those

charges.

The plaintiff was red after she didn’t attend either

hearing, and she led a suit.

One of her claims was disability discrimination

in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The plaintiff alleged there were two reasons why

she couldn’t return to work, and those were (1) she

had been her husband’s main caregiver and (2) she

had been mentally unable to work. She also alleged

that her mental disability was due to (1) the stress and

depression caused by seeing her husband slowly waste

away and (2) the demands that being a caregiver had

imposed upon her.

According to the allegations, the plaintiff request-

ed a reasonable accommodation in the form of a leave

of absence after her medical leave was exhausted by

(1) submitting medical documentation and (2) calling

the ofce about her continued inability to work.

The sheriff led a motion to dismiss, arguing:

(1) any stress caused by observing her husband’s

suffering was too temporary to be a disability, (2)the

plaintiff had admitted that she didn’t require an

accommodation for the purpose of performing her

job, (3) the “medical documentation” submitted by

the plaintiff was too vague to amount to an accom-

modation request and (4) a non-working plaintiff

couldn’t make the showing required by the ADA of

being able to perform the essential functions of her

job with an accommodation.

The district court judge assumed for the purpose

of argument that the stress and depression suffered

by the plaintiff because of her situation qualied as

a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

Have a nonprot question

or story idea you would like to share?

Contact Nicholas King, Editor, at

nicholaskingllc@gmail.com