Simmons v. Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc.

Background

Tameka Simmons, a former employee of Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc., worked as an Accounts Payable Coordinator from May 2016 until her termination in October 2020. She alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The court understood her amended complaint to assert claims for disability-based termination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, ADA, state, and city retaliation, FMLA retaliation, and FMLA interference.

Simmons had hallux valgus, which she described as painful bunions and hammertoe that substantially limited standing and walking. She began seeking treatment in April 2019 and told a supervisor that she was considering surgery and leave. In September 2020, she told a supervisor that she would need surgery and approximately four to eight weeks of leave. On September 11, she formally requested leave from October 16 through December 16 and submitted FMLA paperwork. Unum notified her that she was eligible for FMLA leave as of the request date. Success Academy terminated her on October 1.

Success Academy said the termination resulted from a planned reorganization of its Controller Department and identified Simmons as the low-performing Accounts Payable Coordinator who would eventually be released. Simmons disputed when the termination decision was made and argued that the timing of her leave request affected the decision. She had withdrawn her separate accommodation claim concerning her request to wear sneakers.

Legal standard

The court considered Success Academy’s motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of an important fact requires a trial. The court had to view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in Simmons’s favor as the nonmoving party. Summary judgment was proper only if a reasonable jury could not find for Simmons on a claim.

Court’s analysis

Disability-based termination

The court granted summary judgment to Success Academy on Simmons’s claim that she was terminated because of her disability under the ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court found no evidence that Success Academy acted with discriminatory hostility toward her foot condition. It emphasized that the company had known about her diagnosis since at least April 2019, that her performance had begun falling below expectations before that disclosure, and that records identified her as the lowest-performing Accounts Payable Coordinator. Based on those circumstances, the court held that no reasonable jury could conclude that discriminatory hostility toward her disability caused the termination.

Failure to accommodate with short-term leave

The court denied summary judgment on Simmons’s claim that Success Academy failed to accommodate her disability by providing short-term leave. A finite leave period may qualify as a reasonable accommodation if it is reasonably likely to allow the employee to return to work. The court found factual disputes about whether Simmons’s termination date had been fixed before she requested leave and whether the October 1 termination improperly denied that request.

The court relied in part on evidence that Peter Wanner could not remember when the termination decision was made and that a September 9 email discussed finding a temporary worker during Simmons’s anticipated absence. The court noted that a jury could instead find that the leave would impose an undue hardship, was not sufficiently finite, or would eliminate an essential job function. Those factual questions prevented summary judgment.

FMLA interference

The court also denied summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim. To prevail on this type of claim, Simmons had to show that she was eligible, Success Academy was a covered employer, she was entitled to leave, she gave notice, and Success Academy denied or interfered with an FMLA benefit.

The court found that Simmons was FMLA-eligible when she submitted her paperwork, Success Academy was an employer covered by the law, and she gave notice of her intended leave. A reasonable jury could find that she was entitled to medical leave for foot surgery and that the company interfered with that right by terminating her when it did. The court rejected Success Academy’s reliance on a regulation concerning the end of an employer’s obligation to continue leave after an employee is laid off, explaining that the regulation addressed reinstatement after leave rather than termination when an eligible employee requests leave. The evidence did not conclusively establish that Simmons would have been terminated on October 1 even if she had not requested leave.

Retaliation

Judge Ramos denied summary judgment on Simmons’s retaliation claims under the ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the FMLA. Requesting a reasonable accommodation is protected activity under the ADA, and the FMLA also protects employees who exercise or assert FMLA rights.

The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Simmons was terminated partly because she requested time off for surgery. Although Success Academy identified a reorganization as an additional reason for the termination, the court explained that a plaintiff may prevail when an impermissible factor was one motivating factor in the decision. The short period between Simmons’s September requests and her October 1 termination, together with uncertainty about when the termination decision became final, created genuine factual disputes. The court also stated that the federal retaliation analysis provided a sufficient basis for the related state and city retaliation claims to proceed to a factfinder.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Success Academy’s motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion as to Simmons’s claim that she was terminated because of her disability. It denied the motion as to her remaining reasonable-accommodation claim concerning short-term leave, FMLA interference claim, and retaliation claims. The court directed the parties to appear for a telephonic status conference and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.