Perez v. New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center

Background

Chimene Perez worked for New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center as a credentialing analyst from January 2016 through November 2021. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she was permitted to work remotely. In 2021, she submitted a request for a medical exemption from the New York vaccination requirement. Her physician wrote that Perez had experienced an uncontrolled rash, weakness, and fatigue after a flu vaccine and that family members had experienced reactions after COVID-19 vaccination.

The Hospital required additional information from an allergist and denied Perez’s exemption request and appeal. Perez took leave, did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and later resigned. She alleged that the Hospital discriminated against her, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, and retaliated against her under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law.

The Hospital moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s authority to hear a claim, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

ADA Claims

The court dismissed Perez’s ADA discrimination claim because she did not plausibly allege that she had a disability covered by the statute. Although the ADA defines disability broadly, Perez did not allege enough detail about the frequency, severity, or duration of her reactions, or explain how they substantially limited her ability to work or perform a major bodily function. The court therefore did not decide whether the alleged reactions qualified as a physical impairment.

The court also held that Perez had not alleged an adverse employment action. The Hospital’s request for an allergist’s report, denial of the exemption request and appeal, communications about leave, and request that she communicate her return-to-work plans did not materially change the terms or conditions of her employment. The court found that these events also did not plausibly show constructive discharge, which occurs when working conditions are so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign. Perez was allowed to take leave, was not ordered back to work, and resigned before the Hospital took further action.

The failure-to-accommodate claim also failed. The court found that Perez had not plausibly alleged a covered disability or that the Hospital refused a reasonable accommodation. The Hospital’s request for an allergist’s report was reasonable, and Perez did not allege that she provided the report or continued participating in the process of determining an accommodation. Although she referred to remote work as an accommodation, she did not allege that the Hospital refused it. The court also found that her resignation approximately one week after saying she wanted to return to work ended the process before the Hospital had a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The court dismissed the ADA retaliation claim because Perez did not identify an adverse action connected to protected activity. The court stated that the alleged denial of an accommodation, without more, could support a failure-to-accommodate claim but could not be converted into a retaliation claim. The court also noted that the Hospital allowed and encouraged her requested leaves rather than taking steps that endangered her job.

State and City Claims

The New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law claims were the remaining claims after dismissal of the federal ADA claims. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it declined to continue exercising authority over the related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Perez had been offered an opportunity to amend after receiving notice of the grounds for the Hospital’s anticipated motion, but she chose not to amend. The court found that she had not identified additional facts that would cure the pleading defects and declined to grant leave to amend on its own initiative.

Judge Cathy Seibel granted the Hospital’s motion to dismiss. The ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.