In Friedman v. Bloomberg, L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 04602 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Sept. 26, 2024), the New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate disability under the New York City Human Rights Law.
As to plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim, the court explained:
Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims that defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her dyslexia or to engage in a cooperative dialogue (see Estate of Benitez v City of New York, 193 AD3d 42, 48 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 906 [2021]; Administrative Code of City of NY ยงยง 8-107[15][a], [28][a]). Plaintiff repeatedly told her supervisors that her dyslexia made writing social media copy difficult for her. Defendant’s awareness of plaintiff’s disability triggered a duty to engage plaintiff “in a good faith interactive process to assess [her] needs” and potential accommodations, “even in the absence of a specific request” (Estate of Benitez, 193 AD3d at 48). Plaintiff and her supervisors discussed the possibility of limiting her time writing copy, but, viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there are issues of fact regarding the extent to which defendant actually considered accommodating plaintiff with a proofreader for her copy or other suitable accommodation (Hosking v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 186 AD3d 58, 60 [1st Dept 2020]).
As to this claim, the court noted that defendant did not argue that providing plaintiff with a proofreader would have created an “undue hardship” for defendant.