Harris v. The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc.

Background

Dwayne Harris alleged that The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc. discriminated and harassed him because of his disability, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that, after suffering a stroke in July 2017, the defendant failed to engage in the required individualized process to discuss accommodations and eventually told him to accept a significant demotion or be fired. Harris said he declined the demotion and was terminated despite satisfactory performance.

The opinion addressed two discovery motions while discovery was ongoing. The defendant sought a protective order, which is an order limiting or controlling discovery, concerning requests for information about retaliation complaints and litigation involving the defendant or Rivera. Harris moved to compel, meaning he asked the court to require fuller answers to four interrogatories and seven document requests.

Protective-Order Motion

The court held that information about other discrimination claims may be discoverable when it concerns the same protected characteristic. Although Harris did not assert a retaliation claim, the court found that retaliation connected to disability discrimination could be relevant to whether the defendant’s stated reasons for its employment decision were a pretext for discrimination.

The defendant’s motion for a protective order was denied in part. The defendant was directed to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 and Document Request Nos. 27, 28, and 29 to the extent they sought information about retaliation based on disability discrimination and filed within the previous three years. The motion was granted in all other respects.

Motion to Compel

The court ruled on Harris’s requests as follows:

- The request concerning Interrogatory No. 6, seeking identification of each employee the defendant terminated during the relevant period, was denied because it was overbroad. The court noted that more focused information about similarly situated disabled employees disciplined or terminated for similar reasons could be relevant and would be addressed through other interrogatories. - The requests concerning Interrogatory Nos. 13, 19, and 20 were granted. The defendant had to provide information about documents concerning the interactive process with Harris, identify any additional documents concerning complaints about Harris’s work performance, state whether all responsive documents had been identified, and identify employees who were offered demotions to avoid termination. - The requests concerning Document Request Nos. 3, 4, 19, and 21 were granted. The defendant had to produce any additional responsive appraisals, draft appraisals, communications, and documents concerning complaints about Harris’s work performance, or state that no additional responsive documents existed. - The request concerning Document Request No. 17 was granted, requiring production of documents concerning discipline imposed on Harris. - The request concerning Document Request No. 20 was granted, requiring production of documents concerning the interactive process with Harris, or a statement that no additional responsive documents existed. - The request concerning Document Request No. 22 was granted subject to directives concerning the personnel files of individuals who replaced Harris. The defendant could designate the files as confidential and redact sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers. Harris’s counsel could disclose the contents only to specified people and only as necessary for trial preparation, had to keep custody of the files and copies during the litigation, and had to return them at the litigation’s conclusion.

Because the motion to compel received different rulings on different requests, Harris’s motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Conclusion and Schedule

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn directed the defendant to provide supplemental discovery responses complying with the order within 10 days. The court declined to impose sanctions on the defendant. It also stated that the defendant should make every effort to produce fact witnesses for depositions and, if it would not do so, should promptly provide contact information so Harris could subpoena them.

The court scheduled a discovery conference for February 25, 2020, set March 20, 2020, as the close of discovery, and set April 17, 2020, as the deadline for any summary-judgment motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions at Docket Nos. 33 and 35.