Employment Discrimination Claim Stated Under the NYC Human Rights Law But Not Under the State Human Rights Law

Over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim under the state Human Rights Law (HRL) was properly dismissed but that the claim under the city HRL should not have been dismissed.  The city, unlike the state, places the burden on the employer to show that it could not provide reasonable accommodations to allow a disabled employee to work.  The employee essentially asked for an indefinite leave from work based upon severe depression:

In the context of employment discrimination, the term “disability” as defined in the State HRL 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]).  To state a claim under the State HRL, the complaint and supporting documentation must set forth factual allegations sufficient to show that, “upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, [the employee] could perform the essential functions of [his or] her job” … .  Indefinite leave is not considered a reasonable accommodation under the State HRL … .

Here, neither plaintiff’s communications with his employer just prior to his termination nor the complaint filed one year later offer any indication as to when plaintiff planned to return to work.  Instead, plaintiff informed his employer that he had not expressed any intention to “abandon” his job and that his return to work date was “indeterminate”; the complaint merely alleges that plaintiff sought “a continued leave of absence to allow him to recover and return to work.”  “Indeterminate” means “not definitely or precisely determined or fixed” … .  * * *

The City HRL, on the other hand, affords protections broader than the State HRL  * * *.

Unlike the State HRL, the City HRL’s definition of “disability” does not include “reasonable accommodation” or the ability to perform a job in a reasonable manner.  Rather, the City HRL defines “disability” solely in terms of impairments (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8–102 [16]).  The City HRL requires that an employer “make reasonable accommodation 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]” (id. at § 8–107 [15] [a]).  Contrary to the State HRL, it is the employer’s burden to prove undue hardship … .  And, the City HRL provides employers an affirmative defense if the employee cannot, with reasonable accommodation, “satisfy the essential requisites of the job” (Administrative Code 8-107 [15] [b]). Thus, the employer, not the employee, has the “pleading obligation” to prove that the employee “could not, with reasonable accommodation, satisfy the essential requisites of the job” … .  Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo …, 152, CtApp 10-10-13