Haynes v. City Of New York

Background

Faustina E. Haynes sued the City of New York, David Hansell, Jill Krauss, Melissa Hester, Tia Waddy, and fictitious defendants. She asserted disability- and age-discrimination claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also asserted claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act for interference with her leave rights and retaliation.

Haynes alleged that she had back problems after a workplace fall and later developed uterine fibroids. In August 2018, she requested several weeks of leave and told at least some defendants about her back condition and, according to her testimony, her fibroids. She was not selected for the Associate Commissioner of Human Resources position. After Melissa Hester became the Associate Commissioner, Haynes’s title and responsibilities changed, she was excluded from some meetings, and she was later told that she had to leave the Human Resources office. Haynes also was not selected for the Assistant Commissioner of Recruitment and Retention position.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. Defendants objected to the recommendations allowing the retaliation claims to proceed. Haynes did not object to the recommendations that favored Defendants.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the report and recommendation under the applicable summary-judgment standards and reviewed the unchallenged portions for clear error. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Claims that were dismissed at summary judgment

The court granted summary judgment on the age-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court agreed that Haynes had not presented evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the challenged actions were motivated by age. The court noted that the individual defendants were within the protected age group and that the person selected for the Assistant Commissioner position was also alleged to be within that group.

The court granted summary judgment on Haynes’s Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim. Haynes’s opposition to summary judgment did not address that claim, and the court treated the counseled party’s failure to address it as abandonment.

The court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claims to the extent they were based on Haynes’s uterine fibroids. For the Rehabilitation Act claim, the court agreed that the record did not show how the frequent urination caused by the fibroids substantially limited a major life activity. For the New York claims, the court also agreed that the relevant decisionmakers had not been shown to have adequate notice that Haynes sought leave because of her fibroids.

The court also granted summary judgment on Rehabilitation Act claims against the individual defendants to the extent the amended complaint could be read to assert such claims. The court explained that Section 504 does not permit individual-capacity suits against state officials. The court noted, however, that the amended complaint named only the City of New York on the Rehabilitation Act claims.

Claims that survived summary judgment

The court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claims to the extent they were based on Haynes’s herniated discs and back pain. Defendants did not dispute that the back condition qualified as a disability, that Haynes could perform the essential functions of her position with a reasonable accommodation, or that the requested accommodation was refused. The court found genuine factual disputes about whether the relevant decisionmakers knew about the condition, whether the parties caused a breakdown in the required cooperative accommodation process, and whether granting the requested leave would have caused undue hardship.

The court denied summary judgment on Haynes’s disability-discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It found that the record presented factual disputes concerning the alleged failure to promote Haynes, changes to her title and responsibilities, the end of her position in Human Resources, and the failure to select her for the Recruitment and Retention position. The court also found sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether disability played a role in those actions.

The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It held that the timing of the challenged actions could support an initial inference of causation and that Haynes had presented evidence beyond timing from which a jury could find that Defendants’ stated reasons were pretexts for retaliation. Regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act claim, the court found factual disputes about whether Haynes’s March 22-to-April 12, 2019 leave was a motivating factor in the April 2019 decision telling her that she had to leave the office.

Disposition

Judge Gardephe overruled Defendants’ objections, adopted Judge Willis’s report and recommendation in its entirety, and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The court directed that the surviving claims proceed to trial and stated that trial was scheduled for May 19, 2025.