Desio v. Singh

Background

Virginia DeSio sued New Hope Community Inc., her former employer, and Alasana Dumbuya, her supervisor. She alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Her claims arose from a final written warning, a performance improvement plan, and her August 2018 termination.

DeSio had rheumatoid arthritis and degenerative joint disease, which affected her mobility. She said she requested a later start time as an accommodation and told Dumbuya that her disabilities made it harder for her to move quickly. She also requested family-leave time to care for her mother and later took leave for anxiety and depression after receiving the final written warning.

The final written warning cited alleged problems with DeSio’s supervision of residential programs, meeting attendance, disclosure of confidential information, emotional conduct, staffing support, and response to a compromised safe. DeSio disputed those allegations. The court identified evidence that allegedly contradicted or weakened several reasons given for the warning, including testimony from employees who did not observe her crying, the absence of documentation for some alleged complaints, and Dumbuya’s differing explanations about the safe incident. The court also found a factual dispute about whether New Hope followed its progressive discipline policy.

Summary-Judgment Rulings

Summary judgment is a decision before trial that is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts important to the outcome. The court must view disputed facts in favor of the party opposing the motion and may not decide witness credibility or weigh competing evidence.

The court held that DeSio met the minimal requirements to proceed with disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. It found that a reasonable jury could connect Dumbuya’s comments about her speed, the timing of the discipline, evidence that the stated reasons for the warning could be pretextual, and possible departures from New Hope’s disciplinary procedures. The court therefore denied summary judgment on those disability-discrimination claims against New Hope.

The court also denied summary judgment on DeSio’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim against New Hope. DeSio alleged that Dumbuya questioned her need for family leave, and the final written warning and termination followed her leave requests and leave by relatively short periods. The court held that a jury could find that her use of protected leave was a negative factor in the employment decisions.

The court granted summary judgment on DeSio’s age-discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. It found that she had not established enough evidence to support an inference that her age was the required cause of the adverse employment actions. The court also granted summary judgment on the disability-based hostile-work-environment claims, concluding that the alleged comments, rudeness, and written warning were not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile workplace.

The court found that DeSio abandoned her New York retaliation claim and her Americans with Disabilities Act failure-to-accommodate claim because she did not address those claims in her opposition to summary judgment, even though the defendants discussed them in their motion. The court therefore dismissed those claims. The court also allowed DeSio’s claim against Dumbuya for aiding and abetting disability discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law to proceed because the related disability-discrimination claim against New Hope remained unresolved.

Disposition

The court stated that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The dismissed claims were DeSio’s age-discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, hostile-work-environment claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, her Americans with Disabilities Act failure-to-accommodate claim, and her New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim. The remaining claims were her disability-discrimination claims against New Hope under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, her Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim against New Hope, and her aiding-and-abetting disability-discrimination claim against Dumbuya under the New York State Human Rights Law.