You are here: / / Employer Not Required to Accommodate Employee with Epilepsy with Permanent...
,

Employer Not Required to Accommodate Employee with Epilepsy with Permanent Light-Duty Assignment

The Fourth Department determined petitioner’s employer, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO), was not required to accommodate the petitioner, who has epilepsy, with permanent light duty employment:

“Pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (3) (b), employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, provided that the accommodations do not impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable accommodation is defined in relevant part as an action that permits an employee with a disability to perform his or her job activities in a reasonable manner” (… see § 292 [21-e]). “In reviewing the determAdd Newination of SDHR’s Commissioner, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner . . . , and we must confirm the determination so long as it is based on substantial evidence’ ” … .

Petitioner, a deputy sheriff assigned to the position of “inmate escort” at ECSO’s correctional facility, does not dispute that her epilepsy does not permit her to be assigned to duties involving direct inmate contact, i.e., duties that require uninterrupted vigilance and emergency response capability … . Thus, petitioner also does not dispute that she cannot perform the essential functions of an “inmate escort” without presenting a direct threat to her own safety and others in the workplace (see 42 USC § 12113 [b]…). In order to accommodate her disability, however, petitioner ultimately requested assignment to a light-duty position. It is well settled that an employer is neither required to create a new light-duty position to accommodate a disability (see 9 NYCRR 466.11 [f] [6]…), nor to assign an employee with more than a temporary disability to a position in a light-duty program designed to accommodate only temporary disabilities … . The fact that an employer has been lax in enforcing the temporary nature of its light-duty policy does not convert the policy into a permanent one … . Although ECSO maintained a “light-duty” program (Policy # 03-01-07, Light Duty Assignments), the purpose of that program is to assist employees with temporary disabilities by modifying work assignments and duties or arranging for a temporary transfer to a “Transitional Duty Assignment (TDA)” until the employee is medically released to resume regular duties. The express intent of ECSO’s “policy is not to create a permanent Transitional Duty Assignment, nor is [the policy] to be used in cases where an employee cannot perform the essential functions of a job with reasonable accommodation.” Petitioner’s epilepsy seizure disorder was described by her own treating physician as “long-term.” Thus, we conclude that there is no basis to disturb SDHR’s (State Division of Human Rights’) determination that petitioner’s disability was of a permanent nature and that ECSO had no permanent light-duty police assignments available. Matter of Coles v New York State Div of Human Rights, 2014 NY Slip Op 07788, 4th Dept 11-14-14

Similar issue and result in Matter of County of Erie v New York State Div of Human Rights, 2014 NY Slip Op 07829, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Injury from Colliding With a Window Near the Basketball Court
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CASE WAS REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT TO PROCURE A RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; YET DEFENSE COUNSEL FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING AS AN ADULT AND ESSENTIALLY IGNORED THE “YOUTHFUL OFFENDER” ISSUE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS WAS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE ACCRUED, THEREFORE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).
RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ADVERSE POSSESSION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS LAKE FRONT PROPERTY DISPUTE, THE USE OF THE LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Relationship Between the “Open Repudiation [of Fiduciary Obligations]... Apartment Buildings Used to House Actors and Staff of a Youth and Summer Theater...