In Tibbetts v. Pelham Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 2014-11219, 2016 WL 5928741 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dept. Oct. 12, 2016), the court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the New York State Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff, a probationary music teacher employed by defendant, alleged that she was fired approximately two weeks after returning from work following a one-week absence from work due to injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident. In support of its motion, defendant submitted evidence that it fired plaintiff “due to an unusually large number of documented complaints from parents about her interactions with students, which began shortly after the plaintiff was hired and continued throughout the course of her employment” and evidence “that it had no notice of the plaintiff’s alleged disability at the time that she was fired.”
The law:
The New York State Human Rights Law states that [i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice … [f]or an employer … because of an individual’s … disability … to discharge from employment such individual. At trial, to establish a prima facie violation of Executive Law § 296(1)(a), a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position; (3) he or she was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; and (4) the discharge or other adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. In the context, however, of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the defendant need only establish, prima facie, the absence of any of these elements. In connection with the fourth element, a defendant, upon offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged action, is also required to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether its explanation for its termination of the plaintiff’s employment was pretextual.
Applying the law, the court held that “defendant met its burden on its motion for summary judgment of offering legitimate, nonpretextual reasons for terminating the plaintiff’s employment” and noted that “[c]ontrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the temporal proximity between the alleged onset of her disability and her discharge does not give rise to an inference of discrimination in this case since the defendant demonstrated that it had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s alleged disability at the time that she was fired.”
Plaintiff “failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s explanation for her termination was false, misleading, or incomplete”; the affidavit plaintiff proffered in support of her opposition “failed to raise a triable issue of fact since it was based on speculation and presented what appear to be feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony.”