Saborit, Jr. v. Harlem Hospital Center Auxiliary, Inc.

Background

Abel Saborit, Jr. worked as an assistant personnel director in Harlem Hospital’s human resources division from approximately November 2018 through March 2019. He alleged that he told Keesha Nedd, the hospital’s human resources director, in December 2018 that he was HIV-positive. He further alleged that he requested reasonable accommodations for side effects from his HIV medications: permission to lie down occasionally, permission to change clothes as needed, and quick access to a restroom.

Saborit claimed that after this disclosure, Defendants removed human resources generalists from his supervision, revoked his access to employee restrooms, required him to tell his team whenever he used the restroom, moved him from a private office to an open cubicle, reprimanded him for conduct that other employees engaged in without similar reprimands, gave him a negative performance review, and terminated his employment. He brought disability-discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Parties’ Arguments

Defendants Harlem Hospital Center Auxiliary, Inc., New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and Keesha Nedd moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Defendants argued that Saborit never informed Nedd about his HIV status before his termination, that the evidence did not support an inference of discrimination, and that legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons supported the employment decision. They attributed the restroom change to Saborit’s leaving the private restroom in poor condition, the office move to his need to be closer to the team he supervised, and the performance review and termination to alleged lateness, absence during a practice audit, and other performance deficiencies.

Saborit disputed those explanations. He relied mainly on his own deposition testimony, along with a prior consistent statement reported by his sister and testimony from a coworker. He disputed the alleged performance problems and asserted that he had received no earlier complaints or warnings.

Court’s Analysis

The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Saborit, as required when deciding summary judgment. It concluded that his testimony included concrete details about when and how he disclosed his disability, the actions taken against him, and why he believed Defendants’ stated reasons were pretextual—that is, not the real reasons for the actions.

The court rejected Defendants’ argument that Saborit’s testimony could not create a factual dispute merely because it was self-serving. The court explained that Defendants’ contrary testimony was also interested testimony. Because the parties sharply disputed whether Saborit disclosed his disability, what actions Defendants took afterward, and whether the stated performance reasons were genuine, the disputes had to be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion docket entry. The opinion also stated that the scheduled bench trial would proceed in person on June 1, 2021, with a joint pretrial order and fully submitted motions in limine due May 14, 2021.