Jones v. The City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:17-cv-04894
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jones v. The City of New York, Judge Torres ruled that Erin Jones may seek back pay for a surviving accommodation claim if a jury finds liability.
Erin Jones and the City of New York; the ruling defines the back-pay period Jones may seek if a jury finds the City liable on the remaining failure-to-accommodate claim.
What happened
In Jones v. The City of New York, Erin Jones sued the City of New York under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that the City failed to accommodate her disabilities and fired her in retaliation for requesting accommodations.
The court had already dismissed the retaliation claim because Jones was lawfully terminated under New York Civil Service Law § 73. It also dismissed as too late any part of the accommodation claim based on events before March 1, 2016. The accommodation claim itself remains for trial.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that, if a jury finds the City responsible, Jones may seek back pay from the date the jury finds the City was informed of her need for accommodations through her termination on May 3, 2017. The opinion does not state that the court entered a separate grant or denial of a motion.
The detailed version
- Jones v. The City of New York · No. 1:17-cv-04894
- Analisa Torres
- July 19, 2022
Background
Erin Jones brought two claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She alleged that the City of New York failed to accommodate her disabilities and wrongfully terminated her employment in retaliation for requesting accommodations.
Earlier rulings
In an earlier summary-judgment ruling, the Court dismissed the wrongful-termination retaliation claim because Jones was lawfully terminated under New York State Civil Service Law § 73. The Court also dismissed as time-barred Jones’s failure-to-accommodate claim to the extent it accrued before March 1, 2016. The independent failure-to-accommodate claim remained pending and was set for trial.
Back-pay ruling
Jones argued that she should be allowed to seek back pay—the wages she claims she lost—from the date the City became aware of her need for accommodations through her termination on May 3, 2017.
The Court agreed. It ruled that, assuming a jury finds the City liable on the remaining failure-to-accommodate claim, Jones may seek back pay beginning on the date the jury determines that the City was put on notice of her need for accommodations and ending on May 3, 2017.
Disposition
The opinion states that the Court agreed with Jones’s position on the potential back-pay period. It does not state that a motion was granted or denied, and it does not decide whether the City is liable. Liability and the applicable notice date remain for the jury and trial.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.