Pharmacist’s Complaint of Reduction in Hours After Surgery Supports ADA Retaliation Claim

In Magnotti v. Crossroads Healthcare Mgmt., LLC, No. 14-CV-6679 ILG RML, 2015 WL 5173528 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2015), the court held the plaintiff, a pharmacist, plausibly alleged a claim of retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It explained:

In order to state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must allege that (1) he engaged in an activity protected by the ADA, (2) his employer was aware of this activity, (3) his employer took adverse employment action against him, and (4) a causal connection between the alleged adverse action and the protected activity (which may be demonstrated as part of a prima facie case simply by temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action). Plaintiff claims that he complained to defendants of his reduction in hours following his surgery and was, shortly thereafter, informed that this reduction would be permanent rather than temporary. In other words, he has sufficiently alleged discriminatorily-motivated diminution of [his] duties by defendants after speaking out about his situation, and his retaliation claims may proceed.

The court, however, dismissed plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate-disability claim (since “[t]here are no allegations anywhere in the Amended Complaint that plaintiff required a reasonable accommodation in order to perform his job, let alone asked defendants for such an accommodation”) and his whistleblower (NY Labor Law 740) claim (since he “alleges no inherent danger or actual adverse consequences from defendants’ actions” – namely, the alleged failure to employ a full-time supervising pharmacist).