In Weekes v. Jetblue Airways Corporation et al, No. 21-CV-1965 (MKB), 2022 WL 4291371 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s disability-related hostile work environment claims asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
As to plaintiff’s ADA claim, the court explained:[1]Here, it was undisputed that (1) JetBlue is subject to the ADA; (2) Plaintiff suffers from a disability within the definition of the ADA, namely asthma; and (3) Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodations. Therefore, the court addressed only whether Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.
Plaintiff plausibly alleges an ADA hostile work environment claim.
Plaintiff alleges that (1) he had to take the breathalyzer test despite his complaints of asthma and nasal polyps as well as tightness in the chest; (2) Ayala “dismissively told [him]” that if he could not blow into the breathalyzer, they would “have to part ways,” and suspended him; (3) he was ordered to visit the Clinic, which is over two hours away from him, despite his recovery from surgery; (4) he arrived at the Clinic and there was no appointment scheduled for him; (5) Dr. Patel recommended both that JetBlue direct Plaintiff to see a pulmonologist and avoid testing him for several weeks following his surgery; (6) Green refused to consider his medical conditions during the phone call when he terminated Plaintiff; and (7) his email to Crew Relations and the People Department complaining of disability discrimination was ignored.
Most significantly, Plaintiff alleges that he was ultimately terminated as a result of these actions. Even an isolated act may be so serious that it requires the conclusion that the terms and conditions of employment were altered. Plaintiff’s termination was sufficiently “serious” that it rises to the level of severity or pervasiveness required for a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff has plausibly pled a hostile work environment claim under the ADA.
[Cleaned up; paragraphing added.]
The court likewise held that plaintiff stated such claims under the state and city law. Notably, it applied the state law’s (relatively) new standard under which harassment is an “unlawful discriminatory practice” where “it subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of” the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class.
Here, plaintiff alleged in his operative complaint that defendants crated a hostile work environment “because of his requests for accommodation for his disability” and that two managers “treated him less well by ignoring his complaints and requests for accommodation.”
This, the court held, was sufficient to state a claim.
| ↩1 | Here, it was undisputed that (1) JetBlue is subject to the ADA; (2) Plaintiff suffers from a disability within the definition of the ADA, namely asthma; and (3) Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodations. Therefore, the court addressed only whether Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. |
|---|