Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11068
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, Judge Caproni granted AMN’s motion to compel employment records relevant to damages, mitigation, and job qualifications.
Fahr ueldin Ebed must provide AMN with the employment records and releases sought in Document Request No. 22 by November 13, 2020.
What happened
In Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, AMN asked the court to require Fahr ueldin Ebed to provide releases for employment records concerning jobs he held after leaving AMN. Ebed opposed the request.
The court found the records relevant to Ebed’s claimed damages and duty to reduce those damages, as well as whether he could perform the essential functions of his physical-therapist job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The court rejected Ebed’s argument that the request did not apply because his case involved unequal treatment rather than failure to accommodate, noting that his complaint included three failure-to-accommodate claims.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted AMN’s motion to compel and ordered Ebed to produce the documents requested in Document Request No. 22 by November 13, 2020.
The detailed version
- Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital · No. 1:19-cv-11068
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 6, 2020
Background
AMN Allied Services, LLC, doing business as Med Travelers, filed a letter motion on October 23, 2020, seeking an order requiring Plaintiff Fahr ueldin Ebed to provide employment-record releases for documents concerning any employment he had held since separating from AMN. The request was identified as Document Request No. 22. Ebed opposed the motion on October 29, 2020.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. It found the requested employment records relevant to two issues: Ebed’s damages claim and his duty to mitigate, meaning his obligation to take reasonable steps to reduce his losses; and whether he could perform the essential functions of his job as a physical therapist with or without a reasonable accommodation.
The court rejected Ebed’s argument that the cited authority was inapplicable because his case was a disparate-treatment case rather than a failure-to-accommodate case. The court stated that Ebed’s complaint asserted three counts for failure to accommodate.
Disposition
The court granted Defendant’s motion to compel. It ordered Ebed to produce the documents sought in Document Request No. 22 by November 13, 2020. This was a discovery ruling and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.