Thompson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Background

Cecil Thompson worked as an appraiser for State Farm beginning in 2006. His job involved estimating vehicle-repair costs. Thompson alleged that State Farm failed to accommodate injuries to his shoulder, neck, and back, including two herniated disks. He also alleged that State Farm fired him because of his disability, in retaliation for seeking an accommodation, and because he sought medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for surgery. He sued State Farm and his supervisor, Mark Wagner, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the FMLA.

Thompson moved for partial summary judgment on his failure-to-accommodate claim. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is allowed only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Disability Discrimination

The court denied summary judgment on Thompson’s disability-discrimination claims based on his termination under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. State Farm argued that Thompson could not perform an essential job function because his disability prevented him from driving to vehicle inspections. Thompson argued that driving was not essential because other appraisers worked remotely.

The court found a genuine factual dispute about whether driving to on-site inspections was an essential function of Thompson’s job. The evidence showed that other appraisers worked remotely, but State Farm argued that those appraisers lived on Long Island and that Thompson was the only appraiser who both lived in the Bronx and was fully assigned there. The court also noted that other appraisers were assigned to work in the Bronx even though they did not live there. Because a reasonable juror could reach either conclusion, the issue could not be resolved on summary judgment.

The court also found a factual dispute about whether State Farm’s stated reasons for firing Thompson were pretext, meaning a justification that was not the real reason for the decision. State Farm cited alleged violations involving mileage entries, personal use of a company vehicle, and a required Code of Conduct form. Thompson relied in part on Wagner’s comments that connected his injuries and inability to drive to his job performance. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Thompson would not have been fired but for his disability. It therefore denied summary judgment on the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL termination-discrimination claims.

The court also denied both sides’ motions on Thompson’s failure-to-accommodate claim. Factual disputes remained about whether Thompson could perform the job’s essential functions with an accommodation and whether allowing him to work virtually would impose an undue hardship on State Farm. The court rejected Thompson’s argument that State Farm’s alleged failure to engage in an interactive process independently violated the NYSHRL, because that law does not provide an independent claim for that failure. But the court recognized an independent NYCHRL claim concerning a required “cooperative dialogue” about accommodation needs and found a factual dispute about whether State Farm engaged in that dialogue in good faith.

Retaliation

The court denied summary judgment on Thompson’s ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL retaliation claims. Thompson said he complained in an August 26, 2021 email that Wagner was discriminating against him because of his disability. Five days later, Wagner prepared a memo documenting performance issues. Thompson was fired on December 1, 2021.

The court found that the timing of the memo, Wagner’s comments about Thompson’s injury and ability to do the job, and the timing of the termination could allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that State Farm’s explanation was a pretext for retaliation. The court noted that Thompson conceded that merely requesting an accommodation was not protected activity under the NYSHRL, but concluded that his alleged complaint about discrimination could qualify as protected activity.

FMLA Claims

The court denied summary judgment on Thompson’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims. State Farm argued that Thompson had not pleaded retaliation, but the court found that the complaint specifically alleged that the defendants retaliated after learning that Thompson needed FMLA leave.

State Farm also argued that Thompson was fired for misconduct. The court found a factual dispute about whether that explanation was pretextual. Thompson requested FMLA leave on November 19, 2021, to undergo surgery and was fired on December 1, 2021, eight days before the scheduled surgery and eight days after providing the surgery date. The court stated that the timing alone was not enough, but that the timing combined with Wagner’s comments was sufficient to create a factual issue.

Aiding-and-Abetting Claims

The defendants sought summary judgment on the NYSHRL and NYCHRL aiding-and-abetting claims against Wagner. They argued that Wagner could not be liable for aiding and abetting his own conduct. The court rejected that argument at this stage because the allegations indicated that State Farm, through other employees including Wagner’s supervisor, Dominick Losquadro, was also involved in the challenged decisions. The court therefore denied summary judgment on those claims.

Disposition

The court denied both motions for summary judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at Dockets 29 and 37. The opinion did not enter judgment for either side on the claims discussed above.