Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission

Background

James Murtha sued the New York State Gaming Commission, Brian Barry, Dr. Stephanie Wolf, and Thomas Kotarski. He alleged that the defendants failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his breathing problems, violating Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. He also alleged retaliation under Title V 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.

Murtha worked as a temporary, per diem racing inspector at Yonkers Raceway beginning in September 2014. His primary duty was collecting, labeling, and securing urine samples from horses. He also performed some horse-identification work, but he was not regularly assigned to that work after a horse-identification mistake. The testing area was in a paddock without central heating or air conditioning and contained mold in some areas, a leaky roof, hay, straw, dander, urine, and feces.

Murtha developed breathing problems and was diagnosed with occupationally induced asthma in 2017. Officials sometimes assigned him to early races so that his shift would end sooner, and he could take breaks in air-conditioned offices. He also did not come to work when air quality was poor or when his breathing problems prevented him from working. In July 2017, he asked Kotarski for a temporary or permanent assignment to identification work because he had trouble breathing in the testing stalls. Kotarski passed the request to Barry and others, but the request was not resolved before Murtha’s termination.

The Gaming Commission received complaints alleging that Murtha had outbursts, aggressive behavior, and a poor attitude. One complaint accused him of using insulting language toward Wolf and Barry. Murtha disputed some of the accusations but did not dispute that he called Wolf a “bitch” and Barry a “spiteful piece of shit.” Ronald Ochrym investigated the complaints and concluded that they justified termination. Ferriero told Murtha on September 30, 2017, that his services were no longer needed, and a letter dated October 4, 2017, confirmed the termination.

Analysis

The defendants sought summary judgment, which is judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. They argued that the Eleventh Amendment barred Murtha’s federal claims against Barry in his official capacity.

The court explained that state sovereign immunity generally bars private parties from suing a state in federal court unless an exception applies. One exception allows a suit against a state official for prospective injunctive relief, such as reinstatement, but only when that official has authority to provide the requested relief.

The court found that Murtha did not provide enough evidence to create a factual dispute about Barry’s authority to reinstate him. The evidence showed that Barry interviewed applicants and made recommendations, while Ochrym made the hiring and firing decisions. The court rejected Murtha’s reliance on speculative or inadmissible evidence suggesting that Barry had hiring or firing authority.

Because Barry could not provide the requested reinstatement, the court held that Murtha’s federal claims against Barry were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not decide the merits of the remaining New York State Human Rights Law claims because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Murtha’s federal-law claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York State Human Rights Law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.