Hernandez v. Int'l Shoppes, LLC
| Decision Date | 23 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–CV–6615.,13–CV–6615. |
| Citation | 100 F.Supp.3d 232 |
| Parties | Ramon HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL SHOPPES, LLC, John Doe Corps. 1–5 and Jane Does 1–5, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Ty Hyderally, Hyderally & Associates, PC., Montclair, NJ, Edward F. Westfield, Edward F. Westfield, P.C., Bronx, NY, for Ramon Hernandez.
Michael S. Horn, Steven B. Harz, Archer & Greiner P.C., Hackensack, NJ, for Defendant International Shoppes, LLC.
| i. | Discrimination | 250 |
| “Regarded as” Disabled | 250 | |
| Failure to Accommodate | 250 | |
| iv. | Retaliation | 251 |
Plaintiff sues based on a failure of defendant to accommodate his disability—a strained back that required him to abstain from lifting substantial weights of perfumes and liquors in connection with his sales job. He deliberately concealed whatever disability he had when he was interviewed for employment. He was physically capable of lifting the weights his employment required on occasion. He never specifically complained of a failure to accommodate. And he has no reasonable basis in the evidence to support a favorable verdict.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Plaintiff's analogous claims under State and City law are dismissed without prejudice. They may be pursued in state court where the law relative to disability claims is still developing. This court has no further responsibility for this litigation. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge is respectfully requested to assist the parties in the settlement of the non-federal claims in order to avoid further burdening state courts.
Defendant International Shoppes, LLC (“International” or “the company”) operates multiple stores inside John F. Kennedy Airport (“JFK”). Plaintiff Ramon Hernandez, a 2007 high school graduate, was twice employed by the company as a “salesperson”: first, from 2006 to 2009, and second, for three weeks in 2012. Alleged is that during his second session of employment with defendant, when it was discovered that there was a claimed back problem preventing plaintiff from lifting packaged merchandise, the company discriminated against him, refused to accommodate him, and ultimately retaliated against him by firing him, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., New York State's Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and New York City's Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8–107.
Plaintiff's claimed impairment, the extent of which is not clear, occurred in April 2011 while he was working as a delivery person for NewsLink LLC (“NewsLink”), an airport concessionaire located within JFK. Although NewsLink had offered plaintiff health insurance coverage, he declined it. After his claimed back injury, allegedly no longer able to perform deliveries, he incurred a ten percent pay cut and was staffed as a cashier. Informed by NewsLink that he would be terminated in April 2012—and confronted with the resulting prospect that his girlfriend would leave him and he would have to move in with his father and sleep on the floor—plaintiff applied to again work for defendant as a “salesperson.”
It is uncontested that plaintiff did not disclose his back injury to defendant during his screening or official interview. Plaintiff's injury was first disclosed two weeks into his employment with defendant, on June 28, 2012, after he was asked by his immediate supervisor, Anirood Jairam, to transport merchandise from the stockroom to the store's shelves. One week later, after providing International with a doctor's note, which confirmed that an injury of some kind had occurred in April 2011 and would last until December 2012, plaintiff was fired.
Defendant contends that plaintiff's employment was ended because he failed to disclose that he was incapable of performing the essential functions of his job as a salesperson specifically hired to work the “labor-intensive” 4:30 a.m. shift. Submitting documentary and testimonial evidence, International argues that plaintiff was aware that an essential requirement of the salesperson's job that he was applying for was the ability to lift bulk-packaged items weighing some twenty pounds.
Sufficient probative evidence tending to support plaintiff's disability discrimination claims has not been submitted. Having had a fair opportunity to conduct discovery, plaintiff cannot simply offer his word, which has consisted of multiple unreliable and inconsistent statements, to discredit documentary evidence and the corroborated testimony of defendant's deponents. The evidence demonstrates that plaintiff was informed during the screening interview process that the retail sales associate position he was applying for included delivery responsibilities requiring lifting weights he later claimed beyond him.
No rational factfinder could find in favor of plaintiff.
In 2012, the period of time relevant to this action, defendant International owned fifteen storefronts inside of four of JFK's six terminals: seven were located in Terminal 1, four were located in Terminal 8, and Terminals 3 and 5 each had one store. (Dep. of Deborah Sueskind 54:10–55:1, ECF No. 33–15 (“Sueskind Dep.”); Dep. of Thomas Walsh–Steines 28:14–30:1, ECF No. 33–16 (“Walsh–Steines Dep.”).) Of the fifteen stores owned, seven operated under the duty-free “International Shoppes” brand; the names of various luxury brands, e.g., “Ferragamo” and “Bvlgari,” were inscribed on the other eight storefronts. (Sueskind Dep. 52:19–54:3.) Four mobile kiosks, primarily located in Terminal 5, sold alcohol and cigarettes. (Sueskind Dep. 54:4–9; Walsh–Steines Dep. 29:14–17; Dep. of Anirood Jairam 31:12–14, ECF No. 33–14 (“Jairam Dep.”).)
Aside from the seven stores and singular mobile kiosk located in Terminal 1, the company also operated a satellite human resources office from this terminal. (Sueskind Dep. 26:25–26:1.) In 2012, Deborah Sueskind, who had been employed with the company since 2009, was International's Human Resources Manager, reporting directly to the company's vice-presidents and occasionally to the president. (Id. at 12:10–24, 14:7–14.) She had the authority to make independent decisions related to the hiring of applicants and the firing of employees. (Id. at 24:6–11.) At the time, Ali Dalipi, Human Resources Generalist, and Thomas Walsh–Steines, Human Resources Coordinator, reported directly to her. (Id. at 21:23–22:4, 22:24–23:5.)
Dalipi was Sueskind's right-hand, assisting her with all human resources-related issues. (Id. at 23:6–10.) He played a significant role in the company's recruitment efforts with respect to its fifteen stores and four mobile kiosks operating out of JFK. (Id. at 23:10–11.) Dalipi did not have the independent authority to hire or fire, but he could make such recommendations to the General Manager of International's JFK stores and kiosks, Lucy Salazar. (Sueskind Dep. 23:20–24, 24:18–20; Walsh–Steines Dep. 38:7–10.)
In March 2012, Walsh–Steines's primary responsibility was to screen job applicants for positions at International's JFK stores and kiosks. (Walsh–Steines Dep. 15:25–17; Sueskind Dep. 79:4–9.) At the time, he learned about position availability from Sueskind or Salazar. (Walsh–Steines Dep. 33:14–20, 34:13–35:8.)
Applicant screening involved reviewing resumes and holding weekly Tuesday open call recruitment sessions in the Terminal 1 food court. (Sueskind Dep. 20:6–19; Walsh–Steines Dep. 16:8–12.) These open call sessions were not advertised; knowledge of them was spread by “word of mouth.” (Sueskind Dep. 20:6–7; Walsh–Steines Dep. 16:10.) In 2012, these sessions were exclusively used to hire retail sales associates—the position for which plaintiff was ultimately hired. (Walsh–Steines Dep. 35:14–19.)
Screening for the retail sales associate position involved asking applicants questions intended to gauge their suitability. (Id. at 21:11–17; Sueskind Dep. 78:1–6.) Walsh–Steines explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dechberry v. N.Y.C. Fire Dep't
...Cir.2003) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (1996) ) (internal citation omitted); Hernandez v. Int'l Shoppes, LLC, No. 13–CV–6615, 100 F.Supp.3d 232, 260–61, 2015 WL 1858997, at *24 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2015) ("Essential functions are defined under EEOC regulations to mean the fundamental duti......
-
Mendillo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
...and must put the employer on notice that the plaintiff believed that discrimination was occurring. Hernandez v. Int'l Shoppes, LLC , 100 F.Supp.3d 232, 267 (E.D.N.Y.2015). Even if Ms. Mendillo's conversation with her supervisor regarding her physical impairments qualifies as participating i......
-
Kelly v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health
...impairment is defined as ‘an impairment with an actual or expected duration of [six] months or less.’ " Hernandez v. Int'l Shoppes, LLC , 100 F.Supp.3d 232, 250 (E.D.N.Y.2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(B) ).To establish that she is regarded as having a disability, a plaintiff need not "......
-
Harris v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y.
...the non-moving party, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all reasonable inferences against the movant." Hernandez v. Int'l Shoppes, LLC , 100 F.Supp.3d 232, 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), appeal dismissed (June 18, 2015). The substantive law governing the case will identify those facts that are ma......