Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators

Background

Dante Edoardo Daly sued his former employer, the Westchester County Board of Legislators (BOL), over the termination of his employment, effective March 1, 2018. His Second Amended Complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and other New York laws. In an earlier order, the court dismissed all claims except Daly’s ADA discrimination claim and his Rehabilitation Act discrimination and retaliation claims. The case then proceeded through discovery.

Daly had told some BOL staff members in December 2017 that he expected to need substantial leave in August or September 2018 for spinal-fusion surgery. The court found that he did not make a formal leave request to the designated administrator and did not tell Chairman Benjamin Boykin or Chief of Staff Dennis Power during February 2018 meetings that he had a back problem or needed surgery. Boykin terminated Daly after discussions about his job performance, including an incident in which Daly placed a report containing employees’ personal information, including the last four digits of Social Security numbers, on a shared drive.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must draw reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party, but the nonmoving party must identify admissible evidence that could support a trial verdict in that party’s favor.

ADA claim

The BOL argued that Daly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for an ADA “regarded as” claim. An employer “regards” an employee as disabled when it treats the employee as having an impairment, whether or not the employee actually has one. Daly’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge said that he was terminated because of his disability, but it did not state that the BOL perceived him as disabled or include facts supporting that theory. The court held that the “regarded as” claim was barred because Daly had not exhausted that claim through the agency process.

The court also addressed the claim on its merits. It held that Daly had not produced admissible evidence that Boykin, the decisionmaker, regarded him as having an impairment. Daly had not told Boykin or Power about his back condition or surgery plans, and his belief that others may have informed them was speculation. The BOL also gave nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination: concerns about Daly’s work performance and his placement of employee information on a public shared drive. The court held that Daly had not produced evidence showing those reasons were a pretext, meaning a cover for disability discrimination. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the ADA claim.

Rehabilitation Act claims

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The court held that the BOL, as Westchester County’s legislative branch, was not itself a department, agency, or instrumentality covered on the basis of federal funding received by the County. The court also found that Daly had not shown that the BOL itself received federal financial assistance during the relevant period. His budget documents showed that the County received federal and state aid but did not establish that federal funds went to the BOL. The court therefore held that Daly had not shown that the BOL waived immunity under the Rehabilitation Act and granted summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claims.

Separately, the court held that Daly failed to prove his Rehabilitation Act discrimination claim because he had not shown that Boykin knew about his back condition or leave request, and he had not shown that the BOL’s stated reasons for the termination were pretextual. The court also held that Daly failed to prove retaliation. Although requesting a reasonable accommodation can be protected activity, Daly did not show that Boykin knew about such a request or that a causal connection existed between the request and his termination. The court granted summary judgment on both the Rehabilitation Act discrimination and retaliation claims.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the BOL’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Daly’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and terminated the pending motion.