Krow v. Pinebridge Investments Holdings U.S. LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-05711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 32
In Krow v. PineBridge, Judge Ramos granted summary judgment on federal disability claims and termination claims, while dismissing remaining state and city claims without prejudice.
Solomon Krow’s federal disability claims and termination-related claims were resolved against him on summary judgment. His remaining New York State and New York City failure-to-accommodate claims were dismissed without prejudice. PineBridge Investments Holdings U.S. LLC and Ronan McGuinness were the defendants affected by the rulings.
What happened
In Krow v. PineBridge Investments Holdings U.S. LLC, Solomon Krow, who represented himself, sued his former employer and former supervisor over alleged disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide workplace accommodations. Krow is legally blind and said PineBridge failed to provide vision-enhancement equipment and later fired him because of his disability and accommodation request.
The court found that PineBridge engaged in a good-faith effort to help Krow obtain equipment after learning of his blindness in January 2017. It also found that Krow did not provide enough evidence that his termination was motivated by disability discrimination or retaliation; PineBridge had offered poor performance and cost reduction as legitimate reasons. Krow’s federal failure-to-accommodate claim based on earlier events was time-barred, although a dispute remained about when PineBridge should have known about his disability under state and city law.
Judge Ramos granted PineBridge’s motion for summary judgment on Krow’s federal claims and on his discrimination and retaliation claims based on termination. The court dismissed Krow’s remaining state and city failure-to-accommodate claims without prejudice because it declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them.
The detailed version
- Krow v. Pinebridge Investments Holdings U.S. LLC · No. 1:19-cv-05711
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 21, 2022
Background
Solomon Krow sued PineBridge Investments Holdings U.S. LLC and Ronan McGuinness, his former supervisor, alleging failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Krow represented himself. He alleged that he became legally blind after a 2015 stroke, needed vision-enhancement equipment to perform his work, and was eventually terminated in January 2018.
PineBridge moved for summary judgment, which is a ruling entered when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of an important fact requires a trial. PineBridge argued that it worked with Krow and the New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired to obtain equipment, and that it terminated him because of poor performance and cost reduction rather than disability discrimination or retaliation.
Failure-to-Accommodate Claims
The court held that PineBridge did not refuse to accommodate Krow after January 2017. After receiving a January 2017 letter stating that Krow had significant vision loss, PineBridge met with him, communicated with his vocational rehabilitation counselor, repeatedly sought information about the equipment he needed, and offered to pay reasonable costs if the state agency did not cover them. Krow ultimately testified that PineBridge had not refused to provide what he requested.
The court acknowledged a factual dispute about whether PineBridge knew or should have known about Krow’s disability before January 2017. Krow relied on his declining performance after his stroke and his account that a supervisor had commented on his poor eyesight. But the court ruled that his ADA failure-to-accommodate claim based on events before January 2017 was time-barred because he had not shown that he filed an administrative charge within the required 300-day period.
The court denied summary judgment on Krow’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL failure-to-accommodate claims. It found that the record did not establish that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Krow’s legal blindness was an obvious disability of which PineBridge should have been aware before January 2017.
Termination Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
The court granted summary judgment on Krow’s discrimination and retaliation claims based on his termination. PineBridge provided evidence that Krow had received negative performance reviews, written warnings, and a final warning, and that the company eliminated another employee’s position as part of cost reduction. The court treated poor performance, cost reduction, or a combination of those reasons as legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination.
Krow did not provide evidence that PineBridge’s reasons were a pretext for disability discrimination or retaliation. The court also noted that approximately one year passed between Krow’s disclosure that he was legally blind and his termination, while PineBridge was working to obtain vision-enhancement equipment. The court concluded that the record did not show that discrimination or retaliation played a role in the termination, including under the broader NYCHRL standard.
Claims Against Ronan McGuinness
The court noted that Krow never served McGuinness, making the claims against him subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court also stated that the ADA does not impose individual liability on McGuinness. Under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, the court found no individual liability because the record showed that McGuinness became Krow’s direct supervisor after PineBridge was already actively working to arrange accommodations, and Krow’s allegations did not show that McGuinness had earlier notice of the disability. Krow’s state and city discrimination and retaliation claims against McGuinness failed for the same reasons as his claims against PineBridge.
Disposition
The court granted PineBridge’s motion for summary judgment as to Krow’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claims and his discrimination and retaliation claims based on termination. After resolving all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving NYSHRL and NYCHRL failure-to-accommodate claims. Those remaining state and city claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 32-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.