Piligian v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Background

George J. Piligian, a board-certified physician, sued Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai over federal and state disability-discrimination and retaliation claims. Piligian alleged that he had Convergence Insufficiency, an eye disorder that caused nausea, vertigo, and vomiting when he looked at a computer screen. He claimed that his workload and data-entry responsibilities increased after the Selikoff Center merged with the World Trade Center Monitoring Program, and that he requested paper forms, transcription assistance, and other accommodations.

Piligian alleged that the School did not provide at least some of those accommodations and later decided not to reappoint him. The School’s stated concerns included productivity, data-entry, and documentation deadlines. An email from Dr. Roberto Lucchini stated that data entry was Piligian’s duty without help from a patient coordinator and that, if he could not do it, there was no other job and he could leave.

Claims and Motion

Piligian’s eight counts were: (1) disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act; (2) retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act; (3) disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (4) retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act; (5) disability discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law; (6) retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law; (7) disability discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law; and (8) retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law.

The School moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute about an important fact requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. Both parties objected.

Disability-Discrimination Claims

The court rejected the School’s argument that the evidence conclusively showed that Piligian received every accommodation he requested. Evidence from Piligian’s assistant and the World Trade Center Program administrator supported the School’s position, but the email exchange involving Lucchini supported Piligian’s position. Because a reasonable factfinder could interpret the evidence as showing that at least some accommodations were refused, the court concluded that the issue could not be resolved on summary judgment.

The court also found a genuine dispute about the required connections among the alleged failure to accommodate, Piligian’s performance deficiencies, and the decision not to reappoint him. The record showed that the non-reappointment was substantially based on low productivity and failure to meet data-entry and form deadlines. Evidence that could weaken Piligian’s position did not eliminate the dispute, because weighing competing evidence is the role of a factfinder rather than the court at summary judgment.

Federal Retaliation Claims

The court upheld the recommendation that the federal retaliation claims proceed. It found factual disputes about when the non-reappointment decision was made and what the decisionmakers knew about Piligian’s eye condition when they acted. The short time between Piligian’s accommodation request and the non-reappointment notice, together with Lucchini’s email chain, was enough to raise a factual issue about retaliatory intent.

The court also rejected the argument that the decision was necessarily part of a disciplinary process already set in motion before Piligian’s accommodation request. Although Piligian had received earlier criticism and a warning about possible discipline, the court concluded that the existing record did not establish the kind of continuing course of adverse actions that would require judgment for the School. A positive performance appraisal could also be considered as one factor, although it was not treated as conclusive evidence of pretext.

New York State and New York City Retaliation Claims

The court agreed that Piligian’s New York State retaliation claim could not survive summary judgment because he alleged retaliation for requesting an accommodation, rather than for complaining that an accommodation request had been denied. Under the reasoning adopted by the court, a request for an accommodation alone was not protected activity under the New York State Human Rights Law.

For the New York City retaliation claim, the court considered a 2018 amendment that expressly made a reasonable-accommodation request protected activity under the New York City Human Rights Law. The amendment took effect on November 11, 2019. The court concluded that it was not retroactive because the amendment did not expressly provide for retroactive application, took effect after a 120-day period, and amended rather than merely clarified the law. Applying the earlier version of the law, the court held that Piligian’s accommodation request was not protected activity for this claim.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation in full. The court denied summary judgment on counts one, two, three, four, five, and seven, and granted summary judgment on counts six and eight. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by October 9, 2020.