Cohen v. Integrated Project Delivery Partners Inc.

Background

Molly Cohen sued Integrated Project Delivery Partners Inc. (IPD) and David Silverstein under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Cohen alleged that Silverstein, IPD’s chief executive officer, terminated her because of her relationship with and caregiving responsibilities for her parents, whom she identified as having serious medical conditions.

Silverstein hired Cohen as an assistant project manager on September 11, 2017. The defendants claimed that she had performance problems, including lateness, missing portions of a weekly meeting, and poor organization. Cohen said she received praise for her work and disputed the extent of the alleged problems.

During a December 21, 2017 performance review, Cohen said she told Silverstein that both parents were sick and required care, and that her mother had multiple sclerosis. The parties also disputed whether Cohen asked for, and received approval for, time off during the week of December 26 through December 29. Cohen did not appear for work from December 26 through December 28. Silverstein terminated her by email on December 28, citing the unapproved absence, her response to a problem with a cosmetics-line website, and alleged performance issues.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, seeking dismissal of all of Cohen’s claims. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. At this stage, the court may not weigh evidence or decide which witnesses are telling the truth.

For an associational-discrimination claim under the federal, state, or city disability-discrimination laws, Cohen had to show, among other things, that the defendants knew before her termination that she had a relative or associate with a disability.

Disclosure of the parents’ disabilities

The defendants argued that Cohen first disclosed the specific disabilities only in an email sent several hours after her termination. They relied on her December 21 email, which referred to her “personal and wellness needs,” and on her December 28 email, which gave details about her parents’ conditions.

Cohen argued that she had already disclosed the disabilities during the December 21 meeting and that other communications from November and December also put the defendants on notice of her parents’ conditions. The court found a genuine dispute about when Cohen disclosed the disabilities. It concluded that the emails did not definitively establish either side’s version of events and that resolving the dispute would require deciding the parties’ credibility.

Reasons for the termination

The defendants said Cohen’s termination was legitimate disciplinary action based on job abandonment and other performance problems. Cohen argued that those reasons were pretexts—that is, stated reasons masking unlawful discrimination—and disputed whether she had taken unapproved leave, whether Silverstein had approved her request, and whether the alleged performance deficiencies existed or had been discussed with her.

The court found that the record did not conclusively establish whether Cohen requested and received approval for the leave, whether she had performance problems, or whether the defendants had raised those concerns before terminating her. Because reasonable factfinders could reach different conclusions, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The opinion does not state a ruling dismissing any of Cohen’s claims.