Koester v. New York Blood Center
Decision Date | 28 October 2008 |
Docket Number | 4341.,111481/03. |
Citation | 866 N.Y.S.2d 87,55 A.D.3d 447,2008 NY Slip Op 8166 |
Parties | MARY KOESTER, Appellant, v. NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green (411 US 792 [1973]) sets forth a framework for courts to assess discrimination claims. The plaintiff must satisfy the minimal burden of making out a prima facie case. The burden then shifts to the defendant to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext and that the defendant actually discriminated against the plaintiff.
Plaintiff demonstrated that she suffered from a mental impairment and presented evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether she was able to perform her job in a reasonable manner before she was terminated from her employment. However, she offered no evidence that she was terminated because of her disability or behavior caused by her disability, and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554, 558 [1994]; Executive Law § 292 [21]). Nor did plaintiff either allege or show that she proposed a reasonable accommodation that defendant refused to make (see Pimentel v Citibank, N.A., 29 AD3d 141, 148 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 707 [2006]). To the contrary, the evidence established that she requested a four-day work week and a 10:00 A.M. start time to accommodate her disability and that defendant granted that request, as well as her requests for medical leave. Even if plaintiff had met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, defendant demonstrated by admissible evidence that its action was motivated by legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, and plaintiff presented no basis for inferring that those reasons were pretextual (see Matter of McEniry at 558).
Plaintiff's claim of retaliation similarly fails. In order to make out a retaliation claim, plaintiff must show that (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) her employer was aware that she participated in that activity; (3) she suffered adverse employment action based on her activity; and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krause v. Lancer
...118 F.Supp.2d 425, 430–31 [S.D.N.Y. 2000];Bond v. Sterling, Inc., 997 F.Supp. 306 [N.D.N.Y. 1998];cf. Koester v. New York Blood Center, 55 A.D.3d 447, 866 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1st Dept. 2008] [ temporal proximity between disabled employee's hotline complaint of disability and race discrimination an......
-
Suriel v. Dominican Republic Educ.
...her retaliation claim ( see Shelton v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 369 Fed.Appx. 200, 202 [2d Cir.2010]; Koester v. New York Blood Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 447, 449, 866 N.Y.S.2d 87 [2008]; Dorvil v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 25 A.D.3d 442, 443, 807 N.Y.S.2d 369 [2006] ). ORDERED that the order is affirm......
-
Cadet-Legros v. N.Y. Univ. Hosp. Ctr.
...The discharge that was effected in 2009 was the culmination of continuous progressive discipline (see Koester v. New York Blood Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 447, 449, 866 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1st Dept.2008] [where "termination followed more than a year of progressive disciplinary complaints ... [,] the temporal......
-
Yagudaev v. Credit Agricole Am. Servs.
...protected activity occurred only after plaintiff learned she had been investigated byhuman resources director); Koester v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., 866 N.Y.S.2d 87, 89 (1st Dep't 2008) ("[Where] termination followed more than a year of progressive disciplinary complaints from plaintiff's supervisor......