Paige v. Garvan’s Rock and Rye

Background

Joshua Paige worked as the executive chef at Garvan’s, a restaurant operated by Garvan’s Rock and Rye, LLC. He also occasionally worked at Maggie Mae’s, which was operated by Maggie Mae’s, LLC. Garvan McCloskey was the majority owner of both entities and managed the restaurants with his wife. Paige’s employment ended on August 30, 2022.

The defendants contended that Paige’s performance and engagement had declined before his knee injury. They pointed to his reduced work at Garvan’s, his alleged unwillingness to change the menu, and his failure to run specials as often as McCloskey wanted. A general manager, Kathy Combs, also complained in February 2022 that Paige had verbally abused and demeaned her. McCloskey testified that he had already been planning to terminate Paige and that Combs’s complaint was a “final straw.” He offered Paige’s position to another chef on February 2 and said he pursued other possible replacements later.

Paige sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. His claims included disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, interference, and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. During briefing on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Paige withdrew his Family and Medical Leave Act claims.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court does not decide disputed facts or witness credibility at this stage. Instead, it asks whether a reasonable jury could rule for the nonmoving party. The court noted that extra caution is appropriate in employment discrimination cases because discriminatory intent often must be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

Disability discrimination

The court held that Paige established the initial showing required for his disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The parties disputed precisely when Paige reported his injury, but agreed that he discussed it with Combs on June 27, 2022. Paige then obtained a doctor’s note on July 26, began workers’ compensation leave on August 3, and was terminated on August 30. The court found that the timing was enough to establish the initial causal connection required at the summary-judgment stage.

The defendants met their burden of offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, including evidence that McCloskey had been dissatisfied with Paige’s performance before the injury and had sought a replacement as early as February 2. The court nevertheless found that Paige produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that his injury was at least a motivating factor in the termination. In addition to the timing, the evidence included Paige’s testimony about McCloskey’s statement regarding firing him while he was receiving workers’ compensation.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the case was defeated by temporal proximity alone. It also found that evidence Paige had been permitted to take leave and remain paid after an earlier 2018 knee injury did not prevent a jury from finding that his 2022 injury contributed to the termination. Finally, the court ruled that alleged inconsistencies in Paige’s account raised credibility issues for the jury rather than grounds for summary judgment.

Failure to accommodate

Paige’s failure-to-accommodate claims appeared to be based on the defendants’ decision to terminate him instead of allowing additional time to recover. The court stated that these claims appeared coextensive with the disability discrimination claims. The defendants did not directly seek dismissal of them. To the extent their arguments against the discrimination claims also applied to the accommodation claims, the court rejected those arguments for the same reasons.

Retaliation

The court found that the same evidence also supported Paige’s retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The timing between his beginning workers’ compensation leave on August 3 and his termination on August 30 was enough to establish the initial showing required for retaliation. Although the defendants offered a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination, Paige presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that reason pretextual, meaning not the full explanation for the decision.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ September 26, 2025 motion for summary judgment with respect to the Family and Medical Leave Act claims and otherwise denied the motion. The opinion therefore left Paige’s disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law unresolved for further proceedings.