Giuseppe Romanello v. Intesa Sanpaolo
The N.Y. Court of Appeals partially overturned the Appellate Division’s ruling by reinstating Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). The plaintiff in this case took leave from work under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) because he was diagnosed with several disorders including major depression. After about five months, Plaintiff’s employer, the Defendant, sent Plaintiff a letter informing Plaintiff that his FMLA was expiring soon and whether Plaintiff was coming back to work or “abandoning” his position. Plaintiff, through his lawyer, responded to the letter, stating that Plaintiff was in no condition to return to work and Plaintiff has no intention to abandon his position. After receiving Plaintiff’s letter, Defendant terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and NYCHRL. The Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed both causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s holding.
In overturning the Appellate Division’s holding, the N.Y. Court of Appeals focused on the definitions of “disability” under both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. In context of employment discrimination, “disability” under the NYSHRL is “limited to disabilities which, upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, do not prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought or held.” Executive Law § 292 [21]. A “reasonable accommodation” means actions taken which permit an employee with a disability to perform in a reasonable manner activities involved in the job, and “do not impose an undue hardship on the business.” Executive Law § 292 [21-e]. Under the NYSHRL, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that with a reasonable accommodation he could perform essential functions of his job and that it would not be unduly burdensome to the business. In this case, Plaintiff failed to meet its pleading requirements and therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the NYSHRL claim.
However, the NYCHRL affords broader protections than the NYSHRL and the provisions should be broadly construed “in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible.” Unlike the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL’s definition of “disability” does not include “reasonable accommodation,” rather it is defined in terms of impairments. Furthermore, the NYCHRL requires that an employer “make reasonable accommodations to enable a person with a disability to satisfy the essential requisites of a job . . . provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the [employer].” Also, unlike the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL places the burden on the employer to prove undue hardship and provides an affirmative defense to employers if the employee cannot perform essential requisites of the job with the reasonable accommodation. Here, Defendant was on notice of Plaintiff’s disability, thus it was Defendant’s obligation under the NYCHRL to plead and prove that Plaintiff could not perform his essential job functions with a reasonable accommodation. Since the Defendant failed to meet these requirements in the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals overturned the Appellate Division’s dismissal and reinstated Plaintiff’s cause of action under the NYCHRL.
The Employment Lawyers of Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP frequently represent employees who have been discriminated against due to a disability. If a person works in any borough of New York City they are covered under the New York City Human Rights Law, which provides broader protections than the state and federal laws. If you feel you are being discriminated against because of a disability, then please call the employment lawyers of Fitapelli & Schaffer, (212) 30-0375, to schedule a free consultation.