Greenbaum v. New York City Transit Authority

Background

Steven Greenbaum worked as a computer specialist for the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority. His job involved writing, maintaining, and running computer programs and maintaining databases. After wrist pain returned in 2018, medical providers restricted his typing and mouse use. He requested accommodations, including an ergonomic keyboard and voice-activated software.

Greenbaum ultimately proposed using Dragon Naturally Speaking, VoiceComputer, Toad, additional computer memory, and a microphone to perform his programming and database work with less typing and mouse use. The defendants investigated the proposal, expressed concerns about whether the software would work with the many programs and programming languages in Greenbaum’s work environment, and questioned whether their small staff could provide continuing technical support. In August 2019, MaBSTOA denied the request, citing those concerns and undue hardship. Greenbaum later filed this action, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a trial.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Greenbaum’s ADA discrimination claims. It held that his wrist tendonitis, which limited typing and mouse use to four hours per day, did not substantially limit the major life activity of working. Greenbaum had not provided admissible evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome or evidence that his condition prevented him from working in a broad class of jobs. The court therefore held that his ADA discrimination claims could not proceed.

For the NYSHRL accommodation claim, the defendants did not dispute that Greenbaum was disabled under that statute. The court assumed that Greenbaum could have performed his essential job functions with the proposed software, based on his claimed home testing. It nevertheless held that the defendants had shown undue hardship. The court relied on evidence that Dragon had not been used for complex computer programming in the relevant work environment, that the proposed programs might not work reliably with the environment’s systems, and that the small staff lacked the resources to install, manage, and troubleshoot the programs. The court denied Greenbaum’s NYSHRL accommodation claim.

The court reached the same result on Greenbaum’s NYCHRL failure-to-accommodate claim, holding that the defendants had proved the proposed accommodation would cause undue hardship. It also rejected his NYCHRL disparate-treatment claim because the coworker he identified as a comparator was a manager recovering from cancer, while Greenbaum was a computer specialist with wrist tendonitis; the court found them not similarly situated.

Interactive-process claims

The court denied Greenbaum’s ADA and NYSHRL claims based on an alleged failure to engage in an interactive process, explaining that those laws do not create an independent claim for that failure absent evidence that a possible accommodation existed. Under the NYCHRL, however, failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue can be independently actionable. The court held that the defendants satisfied that obligation by offering the accommodation form, providing the ergonomic keyboard, reviewing medical information, inviting Greenbaum to propose solutions, meeting with him, evaluating his software requests, and explaining why the proposal was not feasible. The court also held that the defendants were not required to test the software at work or retain outside experts after determining that implementation would cause undue hardship. It denied the NYCHRL interactive-process claim.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court dismissed Greenbaum’s ADA hostile-work-environment claim because the alleged assignment involving copying and pasting, interviews for other positions, and alleged failure to provide the ergonomic keyboard did not amount to sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct. The court noted that the keyboard had arrived and that Greenbaum acknowledged receiving it.

The court also dismissed Greenbaum’s NYCHRL hostile-work-environment claim. Although the NYCHRL uses a more permissive standard, Greenbaum had not identified or produced evidence that he was treated less well than a colleague because of his wrist injury.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ February 5, 2021 motion for summary judgment, denied Greenbaum’s motion, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.