Quadir v. NYS Department of Labor

Background

Mohammed Quadir brought two related actions against the New York State Department of Labor (DOL), his former employer. He alleged disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. DOL moved for summary judgment on all claims in both actions. Summary judgment is judgment entered without a trial when the court determines that no genuine dispute over a material fact requires a jury to decide the case.

Quadir worked as a Labor Services Representative at DOL’s Bronx Career Center. His duties included meeting with job seekers, assessing their skills, helping prepare resumes, and matching them with job openings during regular business hours. The opinion states that he was absent 92 days and late 145 times during one year-long period, and absent 97 days and late 146 times during the following year-long period. DOL counseled him about attendance and tardiness, gave him an unsatisfactory performance rating, and issued two disciplinary notices.

Quadir told a manager that his disability caused his chronic lateness. He contended that this was effectively a request to start work later in the morning, while DOL maintained that he had not specifically requested that accommodation. In August 2015, DOL asked its Employee Health Service to evaluate whether Quadir could perform his job. A psychologist found him unfit for the position, and DOL placed him on involuntary medical leave effective October 8, 2015. A later evaluation also found him unfit, and DOL denied his request for reinstatement. Quadir remained on leave until DOL terminated his employment effective December 15, 2016.

While Quadir was on leave, New York State stopped contributing toward his health insurance premiums. His insurance was later cancelled after he did not pay the full premium. Quadir also claimed that various actions—including counseling, disciplinary notices, restrictions on leave, an unsatisfactory evaluation, the medical leave, denial of reinstatement, loss of insurance, and termination—were retaliation for his litigation of an earlier related case.

Disability Discrimination

The court held that regular attendance was an essential function of Quadir’s job. The Bronx Career Center served about 500 to 600 people per week, and the work required face-to-face interaction during regular business hours. The court relied on Quadir’s undisputed attendance record, evidence that his absences disrupted the center’s operations, and prior administrative findings that regular attendance was essential.

The court rejected Quadir’s argument that his performance in other areas made him qualified. It stated that an employee must be able to demonstrate job skills by coming to work regularly. The court also stated that an employer is not required to tolerate chronic absenteeism even when the attendance problems are caused by a disability. It therefore held that Quadir was not otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the position and that his disability-discrimination claims could not succeed.

Failure to Accommodate

Quadir proposed an alternative schedule that would have allowed him to arrive roughly 30 to 45 minutes later, at reduced pay. The court concluded that the proposal was not reasonable as a matter of law because it would eliminate the essential functions of punctuality and attendance during the hours when job seekers used DOL’s services. The court further concluded that the proposal was clearly ineffective because Quadir had missed more than 90 days of work per year, and the record did not show that a later schedule would have solved his chronic absenteeism.

The court did not reject the accommodation claim for lack of notice. It found that DOL knew Quadir attributed his lateness to his disability, even though Quadir had not made a very specific or direct request. The court instead rejected the claim because the proposed accommodation was unreasonable and ineffective.

Retaliation

The court held that Quadir had not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that DOL’s actions were retaliation for his earlier litigation. Counseling memoranda, counseling sessions, emails without material consequences, and disciplinary notices that produced no consequences were not materially adverse employment actions under the court’s analysis.

The claim concerning “full restrictions”—strict monitoring of time and attendance and requirements for medical documentation—was also time-barred as to the case before the court because the restrictions began before the period covered by that action. The court additionally noted that the issue had been litigated in the earlier related proceeding and that Quadir had not shown that DOL’s stated attendance-related reason was a pretext, meaning a false explanation used to conceal retaliation.

The court found that DOL had offered a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Quadir’s unsatisfactory evaluation: his excessive absenteeism and its effect on the Bronx Career Center. His evidence that he performed satisfactorily in other areas was not enough to show that this explanation was pretextual.

The court also found no evidence of pretext concerning Quadir’s involuntary medical leave or denial of reinstatement. Those decisions followed independent medical evaluations finding him unfit for the LSR position, and the suspension was upheld by a neutral hearing officer and affirmed by the New York Civil Service Commission. The court stated that Quadir’s objections to the psychologists’ reports and his claim that the psychologists were married did not show that DOL’s reliance on the evaluations was retaliatory.

The court rejected the retaliation claims concerning health insurance because the loss of coverage resulted from the end of state premium contributions during unpaid leave and Quadir’s failure to pay the full premium. The court found no evidence that DOL controlled whether coverage continued. Finally, the court rejected the retaliation claim based on termination because DOL relied on the length of Quadir’s medical leave and his failure to provide medical evidence showing that he could return to work, and Quadir offered no evidence that those reasons were pretextual.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted DOL’s motions for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for DOL, close the motions at the specified docket entries, and close both cases.