New York Federal Court Says Denial of Remote Work Not Equivalent to Disability Discrimination

Quick Hits

• The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that denying an employee’s request to continue working from home as a disability accommodation does not constitute disability discrimination.
• The ruling emphasized that an adverse employment action supporting a disability discrimination claim must be based on an employee’s disability.
• The ruling underscores the importance of the interactive process in accommodating employees and clarifies the difference between proving a failure to accommodate claim versus discrimination.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of New York City on a claim by a former New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) employee who alleged discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, which is analyzed under the same standard as under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court ruled that while a denial of an accommodation can constitute an adverse action in the context of a retaliation claim, it does not equate to an adverse employment action in the context of a disability discrimination claim.

Alleged Discrimination

Former DSS employee Sally Ramirez filed suit against the city and her supervisor, bringing claims for hostile work environment; race, age, and disability discrimination; constructive discharge; and retaliation. Ramirez, who is of Guyanese and Indian descent, alleged that her supervisor, who is also of Guyanese and Indian descent, made derogatory comments at work about “Guyanese people” and older employees. She alleged that in 2022, she applied for a promotion but was passed over in favor of a white employee.

After not receiving the promotion, Ramirez alleged she became ill—attributing the illness to the stress of learning she did not receive the promotion—and sought leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The city initially granted her request to work from home as an accommodation. However, after she filed her discrimination lawsuit, it denied Ramirez’s request to extend her work-from-home accommodation on the basis that it would “not allow [Ramirez] to perform all the essential job duties in her role.”

Adverse Employment Action

Following the close of discovery, the city sought partial summary judgment on Ramirez’s claims of disability discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge. Regarding the discrimination claim, the court sided with the city, finding that Ramirez had not shown that the denial of her work-from-home accommodation was based on her disability.

The court emphasized the difference between a discrimination claim and a failure to accommodate claim: “[a] discrimination claim on the basis of disability must allege that the discrimination happened because of the plaintiff’s disability. No facts in the record suggest that Ramirez was told to return to work because she is disabled.” (Emphasis in original).

Nor could Ramirez establish a claim for constructive discharge, the court said. Ramirez could not claim that the denial of the promotion was “itself a constructive discharge” since her alleged disability did not arise until after she did not get the promotion. Furthermore, the denial of the extension to her work-from-home accommodation was insufficient to support the constructive discharge claim for the same reason that it was not considered an adverse employment action for a discrimination claim.

The court noted that the record showed the city had offered alternative accommodations for Ramirez’s disability, including allowing her to work from home three days a week. The court further pointed out that the city offered Ramirez additional accommodations for when she was in the office, including additional breaks, ergonomic equipment, and the “use of Access-A-Ride buses to help with her commute.” Instead, Ramirez chose to immediately resign, the court noted.

Regarding Ramirez’s retaliation claim, the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding whether the refusal to allow Ramirez to continue to work from home was in retaliation for her filing a discrimination lawsuit and allowed that claim to proceed to trial.

Next Steps

The ruling provides key context for employers concerning the grant or denial of employee work-from-home requests as a reasonable accommodation for disabilities, such as qualifying illnesses or mental health issues. The ruling suggests that while work-from-home may be a reasonable accommodation, the denial of such a request alone may not constitute an adverse employment action that can give rise to a disability discrimination claim or constructive discharge.

Moreover, the ruling indicates that for a discrimination claim, the employee must show that the denial was based on the disability. It further highlights the importance of the interactive process as the court noted that the employer had offered other accommodations to the employee. At the same time, the ruling shows that the denial of an accommodation could be seen as retaliatory if it is causally connected to the employee’s protected activity, such as filing a lawsuit.

Employers may want to ensure that they properly document the reasons for denying an accommodation and the steps taken in the interactive process.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, New York, and Return to Work blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts