Scorsonelli v. Madison Dentistry, P.C.

Background

Anna Marie Scorsonelli sued Madison Dentistry, P.C., and other defendants. The opinion addresses claims that Scorsonelli was terminated because of a disability, that the defendants failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, and that they retaliated against her for requesting leave. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the defendants’ explanation that Scorsonelli was terminated for poor performance could be rejected by a reasonable jury as a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful discrimination. The court noted evidence of different treatment between Scorsonelli and Michelle Smith, along with Smith’s testimony that she was similarly situated to Scorsonelli.

The court also found sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the defendants failed to accommodate Scorsonelli’s disability. Even if Scorsonelli’s daily requests for time off were not themselves formal accommodation requests, the court explained that an employer aware of an actual or suspected disability must engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation. The evidence could support findings that the defendants knew or should have known about Scorsonelli’s alleged disability and that a limited period of medical leave could have been reasonable, particularly because the defendants allowed Smith four months of leave to care for her husband.

The court described the retaliation issue as particularly close but concluded that a reasonable jury could find Scorsonelli’s repeated requests for leave to be protected activity. The timing of her termination while she was on leave, together with a statement by defendant Dr. Frank DeCicco that the situation “wasn’t an adaptable situation,” could support a retaliation finding. In a footnote, the court also questioned state appellate decisions cited by the defendants concerning whether accommodation requests qualify as protected activity under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It did not resolve the ultimate factual questions in the defendants’ favor or Scorsonelli’s favor; instead, it concluded that the issues could be decided by a jury. The parties were ordered to submit a joint proposed pretrial order and related materials within thirty days and to be prepared to begin trial as early as two weeks later. The court also directed them to discuss settlement and the possibility of a settlement conference.