Judge rules against New York City in ADA suit
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30808 |
JULY 2020 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR
11
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
accommodating her co-workers, (6) admonishing
only her for tardiness, (7) failing to discipline har-
assment from co-workers, (8) refusing to provide her
assistance, (9) denying her training opportunities that
were given to her coworkers, (10) causing her transfer
to the call center and (11) lling her former staff nurse
position with a young black woman.
The defendants led a motion to dismiss the suit.
They rst argued the hostile work environment
claim should be rejected because the plaintiff hadn’t
alleged that her purported difculties had been caused
by racial discrimination.
The district court judge disagreed. He refused to
dismiss the claim, stating that misconduct appearing
race-neutral could in fact be race-based when viewed
in the context of other race-based misbehavior.
The defendants next argued that the Title VII racial
discrimination claim should be dismissed because the
plaintiff hadn’t alleged: (1) an adverse employment
action, (2) a similarly situated co-worker that was
treated more favorably and (3) her qualications for
the staff nurse position.
The district judge again disagreed, stating the
plaintiff wasn’t required to plead each and every
element of a racial discrimination claim.
The defendants next argued that the allegations in
the age discrimination claim were inadequate.
However, the judge overruled that argument be-
cause the plaintiff had also alleged that her super-
visors had made unspecied age-related remarks to
her during 2016.
Finally, the defendants argued that the retaliation
claim was inadequate.
But the judge said the plaintiff had alleged four in-
stances of protected activity because she had claimed
making two complaints about racial discrimination
and two complaints about age discrimination.
He also noted that the plaintiff had claimed the
black supervisors were aware of her complaints, and
that some of the alleged misconduct directly resulted
from those complaints.
EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ The judge emphasized
that he wasn’t expressing any view on the merits of
the case, explaining that a well-pleaded suit should
proceed even if a savvy judge felt that actual proof of
the alleged facts was improbable, and that a recovery
was very remote and unlikely.
Rogers v. Wilkie, U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, No. 3:18-CV-00846 (12/06/2019).
Disability
Judge rules against New York City
in ADA suit
The plaintiff was employed by the New York City
Department of Transportation.
During a March 2017 meeting with his superiors,
the plaintiff allegedly: (1) became agitated, (2) banged
the table, (3) said they had caused him to take pre-
scription medicines and (4) left.
After that meeting, the DOT ordered him to un-
dergo a psychiatric tness-for-duty examination. The
examining psychiatrist saw the plaintiff once in May,
and concluded he was unable to work.
The plaintiff objected to that nding, and sent in
a written contrary opinion from a psychiatrist that
had been treating him since 2013.
He also led a complaint with the New York State
Division of Human Rights alleging disability discrimi-
nation by: (1) refusing to promote him, (2) suspending
his use of a city vehicle and (3) denying him overtime.
The DOT responded to the accusation by claiming
the plaintiff had: (1) engaged in disruptive behavior
in the March 2017 meeting, (2) had recklessly driven
a DOT vehicle and (3) often disrupted the ofce by
singing and/or cursing loudly. It also claimed that
the plaintiff had admitted receiving verbal and writ-
ten warnings about singing in the ofce and driving
recklessly.
An administrative law judge issued a decision in
February 2018 that the plaintiff was t for duty, and
recommended his return to performing all of the
duties and responsibilities of his position.
The DOT nally accepted the nding in March,
but never returned him to performing all of his duties
and responsibilities.
The plaintiff led a suit, and one of his claims was
disability discrimination in violation of the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act.
The DOT led a motion to dismiss.
The district court judge said a plaintiff claim-
ing disability discrimination under the ADA must
demonstrate: (1) his employer was subject to the
act; (2) he was disabled within the meaning of the
statute; (3) he was otherwise qualied to perform
the essential functions of his job, with or without
reasonable accommodations and (4) he suffered an
adverse employment action because of his disability.
The DOT argued there were insufcient facts to
plausibly establish that it took the adverse actions
against the plaintiff because it considered him as
To continue reading
Request your trial