Balchan v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Romel Balchan sued his employer, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), and individual defendants Ava-Gay Blagrove, Vincent Eweka, and Patrick O’Hagan. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Balchan worked as a Specialist on NYCHA’s Lead Oversight Team. The written job description identified field oversight of lead-based paint activities as a responsibility. Balchan has several medical conditions, including coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, asthma, prediabetes, and anxiety. During the COVID-19 pandemic, NYCHA approved his request to work from home full-time. When NYCHA later resumed normal operations, it denied his request to continue working remotely full-time, although it allowed him to work from home on days when he otherwise would have worked in the office. NYCHA then scheduled him for field inspections.

Balchan alleged that these actions were disability discrimination and retaliation. He also alleged that NYCHA failed to provide advance weekly schedules, did not select him to cover for Eweka during Eweka’s vacation, mishandled his FMLA request, and required him to perform office-based work while the request was pending. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that a claim cannot proceed to trial because no genuine dispute of important fact exists.

Court’s reasoning

Individual federal disability claims

The court held that individuals cannot be held liable under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Because Balchan agreed that the individual defendants were not liable under those statutes, the court dismissed any ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims against them.

Failure to accommodate

The court granted summary judgment on Balchan’s failure-to-accommodate claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. It found no genuine dispute that field inspections were an essential function of his job. The job description listed field oversight as the first responsibility, Balchan had performed fieldwork before the pandemic, and his supervisors testified that the position was primarily field-based.

Because full-time remote work would eliminate the essential fieldwork function, the court held that it was not a reasonable accommodation under those statutes. The court also rejected the argument that NYCHA had to create a new light-duty position or continue the temporary arrangement it had provided during the pandemic.

The court also granted summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. It found that eliminating fieldwork was not a reasonable accommodation and that the evidence did not support a finding that NYCHA failed to engage in the required cooperative dialogue. NYCHA considered Balchan’s request, consulted with Blagrove, offered a modified accommodation, and reviewed Balchan’s appeal.

Discriminatory treatment

The court granted summary judgment on the disability-based discriminatory-treatment claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act because Balchan could not show that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with his requested accommodation.

The court also granted summary judgment on the discriminatory-treatment claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Although those laws use less demanding standards, Balchan did not provide evidence that NYCHA treated him less well because of his disability. The other Lead Oversight Team Specialists also performed fieldwork, and the evidence did not show that NYCHA singled Balchan out by assigning him field duties when operations resumed.

Retaliation

The court granted summary judgment on Balchan’s retaliation claims under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court concluded that the alleged actions did not amount to legally actionable retaliation. The denial of Balchan’s accommodation request and the resulting field assignments implemented NYCHA’s accommodation decision; the lack of an advance weekly schedule was too minor to deter a reasonable employee from making a discrimination complaint; and the selection of Awelewa to cover Eweka was supported by an existing professional-development plan.

The court also found insufficient evidence connecting Balchan’s protected activity to Awelewa’s later promotion. Balchan offered no direct evidence of retaliatory motive, the promotion occurred about ten months after his last identified protected activity, and the record contained evidence that NYCHA had previously discussed Awelewa’s professional development.

Hostile work environment and aiding-and-abetting claims

The court stated that Balchan abandoned his hostile-work-environment claims under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law because he did not address the defendants’ arguments about those claims.

The court also dismissed the claims against the individual defendants for aiding and abetting discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Those claims could not proceed because the court found no underlying discriminatory conduct.

FMLA interference

The court denied summary judgment on Balchan’s FMLA interference claim. Balchan submitted his FMLA request on September 13, 2021, but HR initially misplaced the paperwork. While the request remained unresolved, Eweka attempted to assign him work, and Balchan performed office-based remote work after receiving advice from his union representative. HR approved the request on September 27, 2021.

The court held that a reasonable jury could find that NYCHA’s delay interfered with Balchan’s ability to understand and exercise his FMLA rights between September 13 and September 27. The fact that Balchan later received the full twelve weeks of FMLA leave did not eliminate the possibility of interference during the earlier period. The court also stated that the notice violations identified by the Department of Labor did not create an independent FMLA interference claim without proof that the violations affected leave, benefits, or reinstatement.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl’s order granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on Balchan’s disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, retaliation, hostile-work-environment, and aiding-and-abetting claims, and dismissed the individual defendants from the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. The court denied summary judgment on Balchan’s FMLA interference claim, which remained unresolved.