Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Individualized inquiry is required when making a determination of reasonable accommodation

Individualized inquiry is required when making a determination of reasonable accommodation
Phillips v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 05990, Decided on July 28, 2009, Appellate Division, First Department [Judge Andrias, (dissenting)]

Deborah Phillips was initially appointed by the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) in a noncompetitive civil service title in 1988. On July 26, 2006 she was granted an approved medical leave extending to October 30, 2006, due to a serious medical condition ? breast cancer.

Phillips subsequently requested leave for one full year, beginning in August but her request was denied. DHS told Phillips that her 12-week medical leave was granted pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, and that as an "employee in a non-competitive title," she was ineligible for additional unpaid medical leave, which is "only granted to permanent civil service employees, per the Rules and Regulations for Employees Covered under the Career & Salary Plan."

DHS wrote to Phillips advising her that in the event she failed to return to work by her already agreed upon return date of October 30, 2006, she would be "subject to disciplinary action," and in a separate letter dated October 27, DHS told Phillips that if she did not return to work by October 30, she would be subject to discharge from her employment.

Phillips did not return to work on October 30, 2006 and when she was terminated, initiated a lawsuit against the City and DHS, alleging that:

(1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the State and City Human Rights Laws [HRL]:

(2) her request for an extension of medical leave sought a reasonable accommodation under those statutes: and

(3) DHS and the City violated the statutes by denying her request and terminating her employment.

In addition, Phillips contended that as a result of her termination, she lost medical benefits and had to delay her scheduled cancer surgery, adversely affecting her medical condition -- Stage III breast cancer.

The Appellate Division found that the City and DHS ?failed to engage in the required individualized process when considering [Phillip?s] request for extended medical leave, i.e., for reasonable accommodations.?

The court explained that individualized inquiry is required when making a determination concerning making a reasonable accommodation requested by an applicant or an employee, citing School Bd. of Nassau County, Fla. v Arline, 480 US 273 . Noting that ?Rather than operating on generalizations about people with disabilities, employers (and courts) must make a clear, fact-specific inquiry about each individual's circumstance. ? which requires that the employer ?engage in a good faith interactive process whereby employer and employee clarify the individual needs of the employee and the business, and identify the appropriate reasonable accommodation.?

Further, the Appellate Division observed that ?The State HRL provides protections broader than the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA); and the City HRL is broader still."

In addition, the court said that the City and DHS ?cannot avoid engaging in the interactive process contemplated by both statutes by citing their policy that employees in a "non-competitive" title, such as [Phillips], are not allowed medical leave beyond the original 12-week medical leave granted pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act.

In effect, said the court, an employer simply cannot abrogate the requirements of the Human Rights Laws by carving out a category of employees who are not subject to an interactive process.

The Appellate Division vacated the order of Supreme Court granting the City?s and DHS?s motion to dismiss Phillip?s complaint alleging employment discrimination based on a disability in violation of Executive Law §296 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107.

Both the majority decision and the dissent are posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_05990.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on August 03, 2009 (boomark / email).