Skip to main content

Indefinite Leave From the Office: Employer's Burden to Prove Undue Hardship


Romanello v. Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A. - New York Court of Appeals 

Facts:  Plaintiff, Giuseppe Romanello, was a former bank executive at Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A, Defendant in this case.  After working for Defendant for nearly twenty five years, Plaintiff became ill and unable to work.  Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with a series of disorders, including depression.  After Plaintiff had been absent from work for nearly five months, during which time Defendant continued to pay Plaintiff his full salary, Defendant's counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff's counsel asking whether Plaintiff would return to work or resign.  Plaintiff's counsel replied that Plaintiff's condition had prevented him from working and would continue to prevent him from working for an undeterminable time.  Defendant subsequently terminated Plaintiff's employment.

Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant on the grounds that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law.  Plaintiff's claim alleged separate causes of action for the State Human Rights Law (SHRL) and the City Human Rights Law (CHRL).  The New York Supreme Court dismissed the causes of action.  The Appellate Division affirmed.  The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the first cause of action but reinstated the second cause of action.

Holding:  The New York Court of Appeals broke its analysis of Plaintiff's claims down between the SHRL and CHRL causes of action.  The SHRL defines "disability" as one which "upon the provision of reasonable accommodation, do[es] not prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought or held."  Notably, the Court of Appeals held that indefinite leave of absence is not considered a reasonable accommodation under the SHRL.  Since Plaintiff did not provide a date when he would return to work and instead appeared to hope he could request an indefinite leave of absence instead, the Court of Appeals held the SHRL claim was properly dismissed.   

However, the CHRL affords broader protections than the SHRL.  Unlike the SHRL, the CHRL's definition of "disability" does not include "reasonable accommodation" or the ability to perform a job in a reasonable manner.  Instead, the CHRL defines "disability" solely in terms of impairments and places the burden on the employer to prove either:  1) that the employee could not, with reasonable accommodation, satisfy the essential requisites of the job, or 2) that the accommodation would place an undue hardship on the company.  The Court of Appeals held that because Defendant had not met its obligation to plead and prove that Plaintiff could not perform his essential job functions with an accommodation, Plaintiff's second cause of action should not have been dismissed. 

Judgment: The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's holding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the State Human Rights Law but reinstated the second cause of action regarding the City Human Rights Law.

Date:  October 10, 2013

Opinion:  http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2013/Oct13/152mem13-Decision.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more