Mulligan v. Verizon New York Inc.

Background

Steven J. Mulligan brought disability-discrimination and related claims against Verizon New York Inc. and James Melchione under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The claims included alleged failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.

In its March 31, 2022 order, the court denied Mulligan’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The court allowed Mulligan’s ADA and New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claims and certain disability-discrimination claims involving alleged denial of overtime to continue. It granted summary judgment and dismissed the ADA failure-to-accommodate, ADA hostile-work-environment, and Title VII retaliation claims. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over two remaining state-law claims that did not correspond to the federal claims that remained.

Motion for Reconsideration

Mulligan moved for reconsideration of the portion of the earlier order concerning his ADA and New York State Human Rights Law disability-discrimination claims based on denial of overtime. He argued that the court had incorrectly applied the ADA’s 300-day filing period to his New York State Human Rights Law claim. He asked the court to allow that state-law claim to cover alleged discrimination from August 29, 2014, through August 10, 2016, rather than only from December 12, 2015, through August 10, 2016.

The defendants argued that the earlier order had dismissed the portion of the state-law claim before December 12, 2015, or that the court had declined supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Court’s Analysis

A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier decision. The court explained that this remedy is granted sparingly, including when the court needs to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice.

The court concluded that a three-year statute of limitations applied to Mulligan’s New York State Human Rights Law disability-discrimination claim. The period was paused while his charge was pending with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. By the time Mulligan filed that charge on October 7, 2016, approximately 770 days had elapsed from August 29, 2014. The limitations period was then paused for 329 days until the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a right-to-sue notice on September 1, 2017. Mulligan filed his complaint 90 days later, on November 30, 2017.

The court had already found that denial of overtime was an adverse employment action and that genuine disputes of material fact existed about whether the defendants discriminated against Mulligan because of his disability. Applying the correct limitations period, the court held that his New York State Human Rights Law disability-discrimination claim remained viable from August 29, 2014, onward. The court also clarified that its decision declining supplemental jurisdiction applied only to state-law claims corresponding to federal claims that had been dismissed, not to the disability-discrimination claims that remained viable under both the ADA and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Mulligan’s motion for reconsideration. The court amended the March 31, 2022 order to clarify two rulings: it denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion on Mulligan’s ADA disability-discrimination claim concerning denial of overtime from December 12, 2015, through August 10, 2016; and it denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion on Mulligan’s New York State Human Rights Law disability-discrimination claim concerning denial of overtime from August 29, 2014, through August 10, 2016. The clerk was directed to terminate the reconsideration motion at docket entry 85.