ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)

In Vuono v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., 2019 WL 2433654 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim, finding that allegedly “excessive” drug and alcohol tests did not qualify as adverse employment actions. From the decision: Requiring an employee to be tested pursuant to the On Call program does not…

Read More Drug Testing Was Not an “Adverse Employment Action”, Court Holds

In Lam v. New York City Department of Education, 18-cv-2756, 2019 WL 2327655, (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities-based hostile work environment claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In this case, plaintiff, a special education teacher, alleges that she suffers from anxiety, depression, degenerative spine or…

Read More Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim Against NYCDOE Dismissed

In Torres v. New York City Dept. of Education, 18-cv-2156, 2019 WL 2124891 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims – by granting defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to FRCP 12(c) – under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), on the ground that plaintiff…

Read More ADA Claim Dismissed; No “Adverse Employment Action”

In Natofsky v. City of New York, 2019 WL 1715951 (2d Cir. April 18, 2019), the Second Circuit, inter alia, held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) employs the (relatively strict) “but for” causation standard. From the decision: Having determined that the ADA does not incorporate Title VII’s mixed-motive standard, the remaining question is…

Read More 2d Circuit Holds That the ADA Requires “But For” Causation

In Alexander Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition & Remediation, 2019 WL 1396751 (W.D.N.Y. March 28, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s claim of a disability-based hostile work environment claim. From the decision: Plaintiff testified that he was subject to workplace harassment because he was assigned to jobs he could not complete, his supervisors wanted…

Read More Asbestos Handler’s Disability-Based Hostile Work Environment Dismissed

In Noel v. Wal-Mart Stores, East LP, 18-1139-cv (2d Cir. March 11, 2019) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit, inter alia, vacated the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff, who held the position of pharmacist manager, suffered from trypanophobia (or needle phobia). He sought an exemption from an alteration of his job description that would…

Read More 2d Circuit Overturns Dismissal of Disability Discrimination Complaint by Needle-Fearing Pharmacist

In Hazelwood v. Highland Hospital, 17-4139 (2d Cir. March 1, 2019) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s (a deaf woman) claims of failure to accommodate and unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court provides some guidance as to what qualifies as an ADA “reasonable accommodation”: A reasonable…

Read More 2d Circuit: Disability Accommodation (Effective, Though Not Preferred) Was ADA-Compliant

In a recently-filed complaint – captioned Stover v. Amazon.com, LLC et al, 19-cv-00054 (E.D.Ky Feb. 15, 2019) – the plaintiff alleges that the defendants subjected him to discrimination based on his disability (Chron’s disease). Plaintiff claims, specifically, that defendants terminated him because of “time theft” due to “excessive bathroom breaks” – which, he contends, were…

Read More Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Amazon

From Schneider v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2019 WL 294309 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2019): [T]he Court will examine whether Defendants’ stated reason for Plaintiff’s termination, his accumulation of four written coachings in a twelve-month period, is mere pretext for discrimination. Pretext may be demonstrated by additional evidence that the employer’s proffered reason is not credible or…

Read More Written “Coachings” Were Not Pretext For Discrimination; Disability Discrimination Claim Dismissed on Summary Judgment