Abdelsayed v. New York University

Background

George Abdelsayed sued New York University, NYU Langone Medical Center, NYU School of Medicine, and NYU Langone Hospital-Brooklyn. He asserted disability-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as a breach-of-contract claim based on his employment agreement.

Abdelsayed worked as Section Chief of Gastroenterology at NYU Langone Hospital-Brooklyn. He performed general and advanced gastrointestinal procedures, including endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography procedures. After developing spinal and upper-extremity conditions, including cervical stenosis, spinal cord compression, and cervical radiculopathy, he took medical leave and underwent surgery. He later sought to return to work with three permanent accommodations recommended by Dr. Rachid Assina: seating for procedures lasting more than 20 to 30 minutes; no procedures that were inherently long and required heavy equipment such as lead aprons; and seating at a central station for floor teaching and work rounds.

NYU reviewed the recommendations and concluded that Abdelsayed could not safely perform his duties with those accommodations. NYU terminated his employment on October 17, 2017, after giving him an opportunity to submit additional medical information about possible accommodations. Abdelsayed also had applied for and received Social Security disability insurance and long-term disability benefits. In those applications, he described himself as unable to work because of severe pain, weakness, numbness, and difficulty controlling or supporting an endoscope.

Expert Testimony

The court granted NYU’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Susan Williams. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, reliable methods, and a reliable application of those methods to the case. The court found that Williams’s opinions did not meet those requirements.

Williams relied mainly on her experience performing endoscopies while seated because of osteoarthritis in her knees, along with three articles. The court found too large a gap between that information and her opinions about whether Abdelsayed, who had arm and spinal limitations, could safely perform endoscopies with his proposed accommodations. The articles did not address whether a gastroenterologist with Abdelsayed’s physical limitations could safely perform endoscopies while seated, and Williams did not analyze the proposed restriction on using heavy equipment such as lead aprons. The court therefore excluded her testimony and did not consider it in deciding summary judgment.

Judicial Estoppel

NYU argued that a doctrine called judicial estoppel barred Abdelsayed’s claims because he had told the Social Security Administration and Cigna that he was unable to work, while asserting in this case that he could work with reasonable accommodations. The court rejected that argument. It held that Abdelsayed’s explanation—that he could have continued working if NYU had provided reasonable accommodations—could reconcile the statements. The court therefore did not treat his disability-benefit applications as a bar to his claims.

Disability-Accommodation Claims

The court granted summary judgment to NYU on Abdelsayed’s failure-to-accommodate claims under both New York laws. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a material issue.

The court held that the proposed seating accommodation was not reasonable in the hospital setting. NYU presented evidence that gastroenterologists must be able to stand and respond immediately during emergencies, including life-threatening bleeding during endoscopic procedures. The court found that Abdelsayed’s inability to perform such procedures safely while seated would create patient-safety risks. It also found that Abdelsayed offered virtually no rebuttal to NYU’s safety evidence after Williams’s testimony was excluded.

The court likewise held that the proposed restriction against performing inherently long procedures requiring heavy equipment would create undue hardship for NYU. Abdelsayed did not dispute that procedures such as ERCPs and other procedures using fluoroscopy required a lead apron, or that he could not wear one because of his condition. The court did not decide whether those procedures were essential functions of his job. It concluded instead that the restriction would create hardship because Abdelsayed had performed such procedures, the procedures could involve patient-safety concerns, and other employees would have to cover them.

The court did not decide whether the third proposed accommodation—performing floor teaching and work rounds at a central station with seating—was unreasonable or created undue hardship, because the first two accommodations were already found unreasonable or unduly burdensome and Abdelsayed had not argued that fewer than all three accommodations would allow him to return to work.

Breach of Contract

Abdelsayed’s employment agreement required NYU to engage in an interactive process and consider reasonable accommodation requests before applying the agreement’s disability-related termination provision. The court held that NYU had fulfilled that obligation.

The court pointed to NYU’s communications with Abdelsayed about his medical condition, leave, and ability to return to work; its extension of his leave after the initial leave period expired; its request for medical information; and meetings involving numerous NYU managers and medical and human-resources representatives to review the proposed accommodations. NYU also gave Abdelsayed an opportunity to submit additional medical documentation, which he did not provide. The court therefore granted summary judgment to NYU on the breach-of-contract claim.

Disposition

The court granted NYU’s motion to exclude Dr. Williams’s testimony. It also granted NYU’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion states that Abdelsayed’s claims were dismissed in their entirety and directed the Clerk’s Office to terminate the open motions and close the case.