Sullivan v. National Express LLC

Background

Elizabeth Sullivan sued National Express LLC and Durham D&M LLC under the New York State Human Rights Law, claiming disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. Sullivan worked as a school bus driver and was also certified as a School Bus Driver Instructor. Her work-related hand and wrist condition limited her ability to use buses’ hand-operated air brakes and imposed other restrictions, including a 15-pound occasional lifting limit.

After receiving medical information about Sullivan’s restrictions, the defendants first discussed having her teach a 30-hour course and later gave her a modified-work assignment. The assignment included tasks such as sweeping lots, checking buses, cleaning, and checking paperwork. Sullivan accepted the written modified-work assignment, but after performing some of the tasks, she reported severe pain and stopped working. She remained employed by National Express but had not performed work there since February 20, 2020.

The motion

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks a court to decide a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result. They sought judgment on both of Sullivan’s NYSHRL claims. They argued that Sullivan could not perform an essential function of driving a school bus, that they had reasonably accommodated her, that she had not shown disability discrimination, and that some damages were unavailable.

Court’s reasoning

The court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim. It found disputed facts about whether lifting and assisting students was an essential function of the school-bus-driver position. The job description referred to lifting and assisting students, and the defendants emphasized the need to evacuate students during emergencies. Sullivan argued that the required physical test—dragging 125 pounds 30 feet within 30 seconds—tested the relevant ability and that she could perform an emergency evacuation using her left hand. The court held that the record did not resolve whether lifting students itself was an essential job function.

The court also found factual disputes about whether the modified work was effective and consistent with Sullivan’s medical restrictions. In particular, the court questioned whether sweeping large parking lots and performing other assigned tasks fit within her documented abilities. The court noted that potentially more suitable options included driving a bus without an air brake or performing office work, although an employer is not required to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation if the accommodation offered is effective.

The court further found a factual dispute about who was responsible for any breakdown in the process of discussing accommodations. Sullivan had signed the modified-work letter, but she said she did so because she feared losing her job and benefits. The court concluded that it could not determine on the summary-judgment record where responsibility for the breakdown lay.

The court denied summary judgment on the disability-discrimination claim for similar reasons. Disputed facts concerned the essential functions of Sullivan’s job, whether she could perform them with an accommodation, and whether the defendants’ accommodation was reasonable.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, and the court scheduled a status conference for October 10, 2023, at 3:30 p.m.