Patterson v. EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC.

Background

Michael Patterson sued EmblemHealth Inc., his former employer, and Blanca Vasquez-Cuzco, his supervisor. He asserted disability-discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The ADA claims were brought against EmblemHealth; the NYCHRL claims were brought against both defendants.

Patterson alleged that he experienced severe respiratory difficulties beginning before and continuing during his employment. He described constant coughing, shortness of breath, difficulty walking short distances, loss of his voice, and interrupted sleep. His primary-care physician believed the condition was caused by COVID-19 and referred him to specialists. When EmblemHealth began requiring enrollment representatives to work at field offices, Patterson told Vasquez-Cuzco about his condition and continued medical care. She allowed him to work from home and attend medical appointments. Patterson was fired on September 1, 2020. Vasquez-Cuzco told him for the first time during the termination call that his work performance was a serious problem.

Defendants moved to dismiss all six claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

ADA discrimination claims

The court held that Patterson plausibly alleged an actual disability under the ADA. His respiratory condition allegedly substantially limited breathing and sleeping, both recognized major life activities. The court rejected Defendants’ arguments that the condition was insufficiently severe or could not qualify because it was temporary. Under the expanded ADA standards, a short-term impairment may qualify if it substantially limits a major life activity.

The court also held that Patterson plausibly alleged that EmblemHealth discriminated against him because it regarded him as having a disability. His allegations that he reported his illness, was permitted to work remotely until his condition improved, and was asked about returning to field work supported an inference that Vasquez-Cuzco perceived him as having a physical impairment.

At the pleading stage, Patterson also needed only minimal factual support for an inference that disability-related concerns motivated the termination. The court found that support in his allegations that productivity criticism began after he reported his illness and that he was fired shortly before the date he expected to finish his medical appointments, despite earlier assurances that his performance would improve when he could work normally.

NYCHRL discrimination claims

Because the court found that Patterson’s actual- and perceived-disability discrimination claims were actionable under the ADA, it applied the same analysis to his analogous NYCHRL discrimination claims. The motion to dismiss those claims was denied.

NYCHRL failure-to-accommodate claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss Count V, Patterson’s NYCHRL failure-to-accommodate claim. Although the court found that Patterson sufficiently alleged a disability and did not need to use the specific words “reasonable accommodation,” the complaint showed that EmblemHealth allowed him to work remotely and attend his health-care appointments until his termination.

The court reasoned that Patterson’s remaining request appeared to be to continue working indefinitely while performing below the enrollment quota. If the quota was an essential job requirement, the court stated that continuing to work below it would not be a reasonable accommodation. Patterson had alleged that he was told during his interviews that enrollment representatives were expected to meet a weekly quota, and he did not allege that EmblemHealth allowed other employees who missed their enrollment numbers to remain employed.

NYCHRL retaliation claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Count VI, Patterson’s NYCHRL retaliation claim. It found that he plausibly alleged protected activity by requesting to remain working remotely while completing medical appointments, an adverse action through productivity reports and criticism that could deter a person from requesting an accommodation, and a causal connection because the criticism followed his request and was allegedly motivated in part by it.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion as to Count V and denied it in all other respects. The court stated that Patterson could seek permission to amend the dismissed claim by September 25, 2023, and directed a defendant to answer the complaint within 14 days of the order’s issuance.