Serrapica v. City of New York, 88 Civ. 2040 (KC).
| Decision Date | 14 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88 Civ. 2040 (KC).,88 Civ. 2040 (KC). |
| Citation | 708 F. Supp. 64 |
| Parties | Henry SERRAPICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
David Lira, Garden City, N.Y., for plaintiff.
Brian Sokoloff, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, New York City, for defendant.
Plaintiff has brought this action under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and New York State Executive Law, § 296, in connection with his medical disqualification by the City of New York ("the City") for appointment as a sanitation worker. The basis for his disqualification was, according to the City, the medical condition of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. The plaintiff asserts that his condition, whether or not controlled, does not prevent him from reasonably performing the duties of sanitation worker, for which he is otherwise qualified. A trial on this matter was held without a jury on January 24, 25 and 26, 1989.
The parties agree that in 1983, after making application for employment, the plaintiff took and passed a required written examination prepared and administrated by the defendant for the position of Sanitation Worker. In 1985, the plaintiff took and passed a physical test required of all candidates for that position. On June 12, 1986, as part of a medical examination required of all candidates for the position, the plaintiff was required to complete a questionnaire. On this questionnaire, the plaintiff disclosed to the defendant that he has diabetes and is required to take insulin. On January 27, 1987, as part of a medical examination, the plaintiff was required to complete another questionnaire. On this questionnaire, the plaintiff again disclosed to the defendant that he has diabetes, and is required to take insulin. During the course of the medical examination on the same date, a medical technician for the SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories, a medical testing laboratory with a laboratory testing contract with the Department of Sanitation, drew blood from the plaintiff in order to conduct a blood sugar test. On February 5, 1987, the Department of Sanitation found the plaintiff to be medically not qualified. The plaintiff was initially notified of his disqualification by a "Notice of Not Qualified," approved by the Department of Sanitation's Director of Personnel on March 26, 1987. In a subsequent formal "Notice of Personnel Director Action," dated June 5, 1987, issued by the Department of Personnel, the plaintiff was informed that he failed to meet medical requirements for the position of Sanitation Worker. The plaintiff subsequently appealed the decision of the City Personnel Director to the Civil Service Commission, which affirmed the Personnel Director by notice dated April 12, 1988. First Amended Pre-trial Order at 2-4.
The plaintiff called three witnesses at trial: Henry Serrapica, the plaintiff; Borisse Paulin, M.D., the deputy medical director of the New York City Department of Sanitation (the "Department"); and Alan P. Braun, M.D. a specialist in diabetes who examined plaintiff.
The plaintiff testified that he was first diagnosed as having diabetes in 1976, Tr. 21; that he was hospitalized for the disease in that same year but has not been hospitalized since, Tr. 23; and that when he experiences hypoglycemic2 reactions he feels shaky, consumes a packet of sugar, and the shakiness stops, Tr. 23-24. He has been employed since August, 1988 as a mail carrier in Suffolk County by the Post Office, and routinely carries a 35 to 40 pound mail satchel for five hours a day in all weather. Tr. 24. He has had some hypoglycemic reactions while working, but not while driving his mail jeep. Tr. 25. He insisted that his diabetic condition has had no effect on his ability to perform his duties as a postal worker. Tr. 26. In his previous employment by a messenger company at Kennedy Airport, involving a great deal of driving, lifting and freight handling, plaintiff testified that his diabetes caused him no difficulties. Tr. 29. Concluding his direct examination, plaintiff said that he has had no problems with his extremities, blackouts, numbness or seizures. Tr. 32-33.
On cross-examination, plaintiff said that he had been told by a doctor that his blood sugar reading had gone as high as 345 mg/dl. Tr. 36. He then admitted that it had gone as high as 390 mg/dl. Id. When asked how frequently his blood sugar reading is over 200 mg/dl, he answered "not that much." Tr. 36. After saying he didn't remember, Tr. 37, he conceded that on his last visit to a doctor, on July 23, 1988, his blood sugar reading was 260 mg/dl, and that on his previous visit to his doctor, around February 6, 1988, he was told the reading was 250 mg/dl. Tr. 35. He said that at the time he was applying for the sanitation job he saw a doctor three times between January and March, 1987, but couldn't recall what the blood sugar levels were. When confronted with the readings of 290, 250 and 210 mg/dl, for these three visits, he insisted he couldn't remember. Tr. 39. When asked whether he recalled getting a reading of 390 mg/dl, the highest reading in medical records produced to the defendant, a reading given to him by his physician Dr. Eli Ide, on April 3, 1982, plaintiff stated that he didn't remember. Tr. 40. After some hesitation, plaintiff conceded that he ceased consulting his doctor for three years after getting the highest blood sugar reading he had ever received, 390 mg/dl. Tr. 41. He indicated that from time to time he developed boils on his body, and last had such boils in the summer of 1988. Why then, did Dr. Braun notice such boils when he examined plaintiff in December (1988), plaintiff was asked, without satisfactory answer. Tr. 42-43. On the matter of poor control of blood sugar levels and severe overall debilitation due to diabetes, plaintiff testified as follows:
The plaintiff further stated that as of the time of the trial he had not started attending courses for treatment in controlling his diabetes, even though his doctor had recommended he do so. Tr. 59-60.
Dr. Borisse Paulin, deputy medical director of the City's Department of Sanitation testified that upon reviewing plaintiff's medical examination and test results, she concluded that plaintiff could not be hired for the safety title position he was seeking. Tr. 68. The reason was based upon the finding that his diabetes was not well controlled, and that disqualification was required under the prevailing medical disqualification criteria. Tr. 69-70. In substance, plaintiff's blood sugar was not under control. Tr. 71. The Doctor asserted that in her professional opinion good control would constitute a level "anywhere between 80 and 140". Tr. 72. The relevant criteria published by the Advanced Research Resources Organization, utilized by the Department in a physician's manual for sanitation workers, indicates an acceptable range of between 80 mg/dl and 200 mg/dl. Tr. 72.
Doctor Paulin further explained that the purpose of the medical testing and assessment performed with respect to applicants for the job of sanitation worker is to exclude anyone with a condition that would be a hazard to public safety in the operation of a large or dangerous motor vehicle or piece of equipment, and that the average sanitation worker lifts 17 tons per day. Tr. 76-77. Workers must lift heavy, bulky objects, operate complex and sometimes dangerous equipment, drive in hazardous road conditions and inclement weather and may be exposed to dust, fumes, odors, extreme heat and biting cold. Tr. 81. The Department is responsible for any accident or injury that might happen to a civilian because of some medical problem of one of its employees. Id. Blackouts behind the wheel of heavy-duty motorized equipment is a concern. Tr. 82.
Dr. Paulin testified that on his medical questionnaire plaintiff had stated that he had been an insulin dependent diabetic for about ten years. Tr. 83. When examined in 1987, the examining physician noted that the candidate had healed boils on the buttocks, indicating a problem with control of the blood sugar, Tr. 87, and that his post-prandial (after meal) blood sugar levels were significantly higher than 183 mg/dl.
The Department's policy does not exclude from employment people with diabetes on insulin. Tr. 90.
What the department wishes to know is that when we put someone with diabetes on insulin behind the wheel of a large vehicle or walking behind a grinding hopper with clashing teeth, that he or she is going to be in reasonable diabetic control, that the sugar is not going to fall too low and the person is not going to faint and fall into the hopper or, at the other end of the spectrum, that the sugar is not going to rage out of control in the upper ranges and the person go into acute diabetic coma while he is on the job, or have increased incidence of infection or disability or vascular disease, so that we certainly would like to participate with the candidate and his physician in working out some system of mutual benefit for both.
Dr. Paulin stated that plaintiff had submitted two letters to the Department as part of his application, from his personal physician Dr. Eli Ide, the first dated June, 1986, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. Pa. State Police
...not obligated to furnish any reasonable accommodation that would enable her to perform the essential job functions"); Serrapica v. New York, 708 F.Supp. 64, 73 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 888 F.2d 126 (2d Cir. 1989) ("employer is allowed to consider potential safety risks to applicants' co-worker, an......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut, 3:97CV0890 GLG.
...832 (11th Cir.1998) (considering whether the employee's disability was a direct threat to the employee's safety); Serrapica v. City of New York, 708 F.Supp. 64, 73 (S.D.N.Y.) (considering, in a Rehabilitation Act case, whether an individual was a direct threat to his own safety as well as t......
-
Amariglio v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., Civil Action No. 94-1049 (JHG).
...128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994), as well as in law enforcement, e.g., Siefken, 65 F.3d at 667, and even in sanitation. E.g., Serrapica v. City of New York, 708 F.Supp. 64, 73 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 888 F.2d 126 (2d Cir.1989). AMTRAK, however, bars a person with diabetes only when that person's diabetes i......
-
Huber v. Howard County, Md., Civ. No. K-93-606.
...potential safety risks to applicants co-workers, and others in making a decision about employment criteria." Serrapica v. New York, 708 F.Supp. 64, 73 (S.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd 888 F.2d 126 Beyond the medication controversy, Huber has provided the opinion of Dr. James L. Gamble, a specialist in......