Bordeaux v. Halstead Property Development Marketing LLC

Background

Amy Bordeaux worked for Halstead Property Development Marketing LLC for approximately six months as a sales coordinator and administrative assistant at a condominium development. Her duties included greeting visitors, organizing storage areas, tracking supplies, monitoring voicemail, and handling requested projects.

Bordeaux asked about transferring to another team. The parties disputed whether she explained that the request was connected to depression. Bordeaux also testified that she told a coworker about anxiety, depression, medication changes, and a medical appointment. The company disputed how much information she disclosed and what company personnel understood about her condition.

After a performance review, Halstead sent Bordeaux written feedback concerning interactions with visitors, personal tasks during work, office maintenance, supply orders, voicemail, and project management. Her employment ended on May 30, 2019. Company witnesses attributed the termination to dissatisfaction with her performance, communication, and fit for the position. Bordeaux disputed those explanations and argued that the timing of her termination and references to her being “unhappy” showed discrimination or retaliation.

Bordeaux asserted six claims: discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law, and discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. Halstead moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when the evidence does not present a genuine dispute requiring a jury’s decision.

Federal ADA Claims

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted summary judgment for Halstead on Bordeaux’s ADA discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation claims.

For the discriminatory-discharge claim, the court held that Bordeaux did not provide enough evidence to create a genuine factual dispute about whether she had an ADA disability. The record supported a clinical assessment of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and the court said a reasonable jury could find that she had a mental impairment. But Bordeaux did not identify sufficient evidence that the impairment substantially limited a major life activity, such as brain function. The court also rejected her argument that Halstead regarded her as disabled, finding that the evidence did not reasonably show that the relevant decision-makers perceived her as having a mental impairment that was more than transitory or minor.

The court further held that, even if Bordeaux could establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Halstead had offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: concerns about her performance and communication. Bordeaux’s disagreement with Halstead’s assessment, the description of the termination as a mutual agreement, and the timing of the termination did not provide sufficient evidence that those reasons were a pretext for disability discrimination.

The failure-to-accommodate claim also failed. The court concluded that Bordeaux had not shown that she had an ADA disability or that she gave Halstead adequate notice of one. Her transfer request described wanting to use her skills more effectively and did not link the request to a disability. The court also stated that a person regarded as disabled, but not actually disabled, cannot bring an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim.

The ADA retaliation claim failed because Bordeaux did not provide sufficient evidence that she requested an accommodation for a disability. Without evidence of protected activity under the ADA, the retaliation claim could not proceed.

State and City Claims

After granting summary judgment on the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case—over Bordeaux’s claims under New York State and New York City law. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court therefore did not decide their merits.

Disposition

The court granted Halstead’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the federal claims. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and local claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and the case.