Disability discrimination remains a prevalent problem in workplaces across New York and the rest of the U.S. Statistics show that roughly 2 in 5 adults with disabilities have reported experiencing unfair treatment at work, and more than 1 in every 3 lawsuits that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission files is a disability discrimination action. Disability discrimination cases can be complex, requiring the collection and presentation of extensive evidence of misconduct. An experienced New York disability discrimination lawyer can help you assess your disability discrimination case and decide what your next steps should be.
A recent disability discrimination case from here in New York City provides a valuable example of the many components and inner workings involved in bringing a viable disability discrimination lawsuit.
The plaintiff in the case, H.G., was a principal of a public school in Brooklyn. One day while on the job, the principal suffered a significant injury. The injury ultimately resulted in the principal missing several months of work while recovering.
While she was on medical leave, the superintendent of the principal’s district sent her a letter extending the principal’s probationary period by an additional year, effectively denying tenure. The brief letter stated that, “due to your leave, I have been unable to assess your ability as a leader. Therefore, I would like to extend your probation by one year.”
The principal sought justice through a civil lawsuit alleging violations of federal, state, and city laws prohibiting disability discrimination.
In addressing the employer’s motion for summary judgment in its favor, the court highlighted several procedural aspects of the principal’s case. For one thing, the judge pointed out that the federal standard for disability discrimination liability is more stringent than either the New York State Human Rights Law or the New York City Human Rights Law. That meant, by implication, if the principal had a viable case under the federal statute (the Americans With Disabilities Act), she necessarily had viable claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.
Analyzing Disability Discrimination Claims
Additionally, the court noted that the law required analyzing these claims under the burden-shifting protocol outlined in a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case, McDonnell Douglas v. Green. The first step of the process places the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate what the law calls a “prima facie case of discrimination.” If the plaintiff does that, the law shifts the burden to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. After the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer’s stated reasons were mere pretexts for disability discrimination.
The principal’s ADA case that she presented to the court asserted that the Department of Education denied her tenure because she took a period of medical leave after being hurt at work. The court accepted the principal’s allegations as constituting a viable prima facie case. The superintendent’s initial letter extending the principal’s probationary period stated that the superintendent had “been unable to assess your ability as a leader.” As the court also noted, however, the letter expressly stated that the superintendent had been unable to assess the principal because of the principal’s medical leave. Put another way, “the letter plausibly reads as if [the superintendent] was concerned with plaintiff’s leadership skills because she took medical leave,” the court summarized.
That was sufficient to establish a valid prima facie case for the principal.
The department met its burden by introducing a second letter the superintendent sent to the principal that “described specific conduct by plaintiff that [the superintendent] believed showed that plaintiff’s 'leadership and communitybuilding . . . needs further development.’”
Finally, the principal met her burden regarding pretext, according to the court. “A reasonable jury could,” according to the court, interpret the first letter as exposing that the superintendent’s uncertainty about H.G.’s “ability as a leader” was due to the princpal’s medical leave... and that the legitimate reasons stated in the superintendent’s second letter were just pretextual and attempt to cover up the “impropriety of [the superintendent’s] first letter.”
As this case illustrates, success in a disability discrimination action requires extensive evidence, in-depth knowledge of the law, and carefully phrased arguments. If you believe you have a disability discrimination issue, we can help. The seasoned disability discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates, PLLC, are here to help you go over your situation and protect your rights. To learn more, contact us online or call (866) 229-9441 to schedule a free and confidential consultation today.