Court: District Court, N.D. New York; March 21, 2014; Federal District Court
Defendant Cornell University’s second Motion for judgment on the pleadings has been denied. Plaintiff Jose A. Zavala, employed as a network technician, suffers from type 1 diabetes and was diagnosed with early-stage kidney failure in October 2009. After requesting a reduction in duties requiring walking, his supervisor, Jeremy Butler, instead assigned him more walking tasks. During a February 2010 performance evaluation, Butler downgraded Plaintiff due to missed medical appointments, leading to a refusal to sign the evaluation, which prompted threats from Director of Operations Sasja Huijts.
Following a three-week medical leave, Plaintiff returned to a restrictive duty assignment and was placed in a customer service role, losing access to his tools and vehicle. Huijts also suggested he apply for permanent disability and rejected a fit-for-duty letter from a nurse practitioner. A meeting with human resources manager Mittman failed to address Plaintiff's grievances adequately and lacked confidentiality. After suffering a broken foot in June 2010 and requesting light-duty accommodation, which was denied, Plaintiff went on short-term disability until October 2010. Upon his return, Huijts reassigned him to a less prestigious position with minimal overtime opportunities, warning him against challenging the reassignment.
Plaintiff received another negative job evaluation in April 2011, citing missing tools and poor time management, which he contended were not accurate due to the loss of his vehicle. He filed a complaint with the EEOC and New York State Division of Human Rights on August 19, 2011.
Plaintiff initiated this legal action by filing a Complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Defendant responded with an Answer and a Motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted, allowing the Plaintiff, due to his pro se status, to amend the Complaint. After filing the Amended Complaint, the Defendant answered and filed a second Motion for judgment.
To withstand a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, a complaint must present sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief, with the court accepting the factual allegations as true and drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. A Rule 12(c) motion is evaluated similarly but considers the pleadings in their entirety since it occurs after the close of pleadings.
The Plaintiff's claims are challenged on two grounds: first, that they are time-barred because the EEOC claim was filed more than 180 days post-incident, and second, the Plaintiff has not shown an 'adverse employment action'. To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the ADA, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer is covered by the ADA, that the Plaintiff is disabled, qualified for the job, and experienced an adverse employment action due to the disability. While the Defendant concedes the first three criteria are met, they dispute the occurrence of an adverse employment action.
An adverse employment action is defined as a significant change in employment terms or conditions. The Defendant argues that the only alleged adverse action is the Plaintiff's reassignment to a different team, which the Plaintiff declined, suggesting it does not qualify as adverse. However, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities can be actionable under the ADA, provided it constitutes more than a mere inconvenience or minor alteration of job duties.
Courts evaluate whether an employment action is 'adverse' on a case-by-case basis, as established in Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co. The plaintiff argues that his new team performs less complex work compared to his previous team and that he has suffered lost overtime pay due to his transfer. These claims of economic harm and a significant change in job responsibilities are sufficient to demonstrate an adverse employment action, supported by Ramazzotti v. El Al Israel Airlines, which recognizes reassignment leading to loss of overtime and responsibilities as adverse. The plaintiff’s refusal to return to his former team does not negate the adverse nature of the reassignment.
Regarding performance evaluations, an unsatisfactory evaluation alone does not constitute an adverse action unless it leads to a material change in work conditions. Negative evaluations can be adverse if they result in further detrimental actions, such as disciplinary measures. The plaintiff's transfer appears to be linked to criticism in his performance evaluation, allowing his claim regarding the evaluation to proceed. Additionally, the defendant's refusal of the plaintiff's right-to-work letter after his disability leave negatively impacted his employment, forcing him to remain in a lower-level position despite his ability to return to his prior role. This refusal, along with the loss of overtime and reassignment, qualifies as an adverse action.
For hostile work environment claims under the ADA, the standard aligns with Title VII claims, requiring evidence of pervasive discriminatory behavior that significantly alters the victim's employment conditions. Such claims must demonstrate both objective severity and the victim's subjective perception of an abusive environment.
Plaintiff experienced a perceived abusive environment within the Backbone team, leading him to decline a lucrative transfer due to fears of working under Huijts and Butler. The assessment of a hostile work environment requires a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances, including the frequency and severity of discriminatory conduct, its threatening or humiliating nature, and its impact on job performance. The plaintiff must show that hostility was linked to their disability. The Complaint details actions by Huijts and Butler that interfered with the plaintiff's job performance, such as threats regarding the use of internal HR mechanisms, the removal of the plaintiff's vehicle despite known mobility limitations, and assigning more physically demanding tasks after accommodation requests. Huijts also pressured the plaintiff to seek permanent disability. These actions are argued to significantly worsen the employment conditions, justifying the hostile work environment claim.
Regarding the limitations period, to pursue an ADA claim, a plaintiff must file a timely charge with the EEOC. Generally, claims based on events occurring more than 300 or 180 days prior to the charge submission are barred. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC on August 19, 2011, making events after October 23, 2010, actionable. Additionally, the plaintiff contends that an earlier EEOC complaint allows claims from before this date, supported by a certified mail receipt indicating correspondence sent on July 14, 2011.
A statement in a complaint indicating the plaintiff filed an application with the EEOC is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. In this case, the plaintiff's assertion of filing, supported by a certified mail return receipt, serves as credible evidence of filing an administrative complaint. This allows the plaintiff to pursue claims arising on or after September 17, 2010.
The plaintiff also argues for claims related to a right-to-work letter and performance evaluations under the continuing violation doctrine, despite these incidents occurring before the 300-day filing deadline. Courts assess continuing violations based on three factors: similarity of discrimination incidents, whether they are recurring or isolated, and the permanence of their effects.
The plaintiff has adequately demonstrated a continuing violation. The first factor is met as incidents stemmed from decisions made by Huijts and Butler close to the plaintiff's medical difficulties. The second factor is satisfied by the recurrent nature of the actions, which the defendant mischaracterizes as isolated. The plaintiff's additional claims of discrimination, such as task assignments and threats from management, support this. The third factor is also met, as the only event within the statutory period was the involuntary transfer, indicating other incidents were not permanent enough to compel immediate action.
Consequently, the court denies the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, rendering the related request moot, and orders that a copy of the memorandum-decision and order be served to all parties.
On a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and resolves all factual inferences in the plaintiff's favor. The Amended Complaint serves as the basis for this section, and the plaintiff chose not to assert New York State Human Rights Law claims similar to his ADA claims. Defendants have addressed only the disparate treatment claim in the Amended Complaint. Given the plaintiff's pro se status, the Court is obligated to interpret the pleadings liberally. The Court identifies additional claims in the Amended Complaint, including failure to provide reasonable accommodation and retaliation.
To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the ADA, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) he is a person with a disability, (2) the employer had notice of the disability, (3) he could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodation, and (4) the employer refused such accommodations. For a retaliation claim, the plaintiff must show: (1) he engaged in ADA-protected activity, (2) defendants were aware of this activity, (3) he faced an adverse employment action, and (4) a causal link exists between the adverse action and the protected activity.
The Court will not determine at this stage if the defendant's job offer bars recovery for damages occurring after the offer. Although the Second Circuit has not explicitly ruled on ADA hostile work environment claims, trial courts interpret the authorization of similar NYSHRL claims as implicit consent. The EEOC identifies the DHR as a Fair Employment Practices Agency, indicating that charges filed with both agencies raise claims under state and local laws as well as federal laws.
The defendant contends that the Complaint exceeds the scope of the EEOC charge. Courts have jurisdiction only over claims included in the EEOC charge or those reasonably related to it. However, the plaintiff asserts he attached a timeline of events from the Amended Complaint to his EEOC complaint. A hostile work environment claim is actionable if it falls within the 300-day filing period, as it can encompass a series of related discriminatory acts. Several district courts in the Second Circuit have applied the Berry analysis for continuing violation claims, supporting the notion that the same evidence can substantiate both disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims.
