Jones-Cruz v. Rivera

Background

Debra Jones-Cruz, a physician assistant, sued her employer, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center. Her Third Amended Complaint asserted disability-discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case concerned two accommodation requests made while Jones-Cruz was on leave.

Jones-Cruz requested physical accommodations related to a back injury, including permission to use a cane or walker, limits on lifting and climbing stairs, and a well-ventilated work area. She also requested a work schedule that would allow her to attend therapy on particular days. Brookdale granted the physical accommodations in February 2021 and again in July 2021. It denied the requested schedule, stating that the schedule would conflict with operational needs, the collective bargaining agreement, and the burden on another physician assistant.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court held that Jones-Cruz did not show that Brookdale denied her a reasonable accommodation. The undisputed evidence showed that Brookdale granted all of her requested physical accommodations. The court also concluded that her preferred schedule was not a reasonable accommodation because the evidence showed that it was not actually needed for her therapy and that some of the requested days were used for her work at another hospital. A failure to provide an employee’s personal scheduling preference is not, by itself, unlawful disability discrimination.

Jones-Cruz also argued that Brookdale constructively denied her accommodations by delaying its decisions. The court rejected that argument. It found that Brookdale processed the requests through its ordinary internal review process, granted the September 2020 request in February 2021 and the April 2021 request in July 2021, and had not acted in bad faith or with discriminatory intent. The court also found that some of the time before Jones-Cruz returned to work resulted from her failure to complete return-to-work requirements or her decision not to return under the offered schedule.

The court noted that Jones-Cruz did not address her NYSHRL disability-discrimination claim in her opposition brief and therefore had abandoned it. The court stated that, even if it considered that claim, Brookdale would still be entitled to summary judgment for the same reasons.

Retaliation claims

The court also granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. For the ADA claim, Jones-Cruz did not show that Brookdale took an adverse employment action or that any delay was connected to her protected activities, such as requesting accommodations, filing an administrative discrimination charge, or pursuing the lawsuit. Under the broader state and city standards, she likewise did not show conduct reasonably likely to deter protected activity or evidence that retaliation was a motivating factor.

The court found that the employees whose alleged remarks Jones-Cruz cited were not the final decisionmakers on her accommodation requests, and that the remarks did not establish a connection between protected activity and the delays. The court further stated that, even if Jones-Cruz had established an initial retaliation case, Brookdale had legitimate reasons for the timing of its decisions and Jones-Cruz had not shown those reasons were a cover for retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted Brookdale’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.