Richard Ulysse v State of New York, et al.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Public-sector employment discrimination and accommodation dispute involving a former corrections employee who claimed disability discrimination, failure to accommodate with light duty, and retaliation.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, including the disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation claims.
The defendants showed legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons for the termination, namely that the plaintiff's medical records listed him as 66.67% disabled and agency policy allowed light duty only for employees who were less than 50% disabled. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that this reason was pretextual, and the court further held that granting the requested accommodation would impose an undue hardship because it would require violation of internal policy.
Background
In 2019, Richard Ulysse, a former employee of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), sued the State of New York and others alleging disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in the form of light duty, and retaliation after he filed a grievance concerning alleged wrongful termination related to his medical condition. His claims were brought under Executive Law § 296 [New York State Human Rights Law provision prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation]. The defendants relied on medical records showing that the plaintiff was 66.67% disabled and on an internal policy stating that an employee requesting return to work on light duty had to be less than 50% disabled.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, allowing the plaintiff's claims to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It held that the defendants established a prima facie entitlement to judgment by showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's termination and a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason defeating the retaliation claim. The court found no triable issue of fact as to pretext. It also held that the requested accommodation of light duty would impose an undue hardship because providing it would require the defendants to violate their internal policy limiting such assignments to employees who were less than 50% disabled.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that, in New York State Human Rights Law employment cases, an employer may obtain summary judgment by demonstrating a legitimate, policy-based reason for termination and by showing that the plaintiff cannot raise a factual issue of pretext. It also underscores that a requested accommodation may be denied where the employer shows undue hardship, including where the accommodation would conflict with established internal return-to-work and light-duty policies.
An employer can defeat disability discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation claims on summary judgment when it documents a neutral policy, applies it consistently, and the employee cannot show that the stated reason for termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation.