Padilla v. Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc., 95-CV-292H.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-CV-292H.,95-CV-292H.
• Citation: 958 F.Supp. 124
• Parties: Barbara PADILLA, f/k/a Barbara Houle, Plaintiff, v. BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC., d/b/a Families United Prevention Resource Center, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

958 F.Supp. 124

Barbara PADILLA, f/k/a Barbara Houle, Plaintiff, v. BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC., d/b/a Families United Prevention Resource Center, Defendant.

No. 95-CV-292H.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

January 28, 1997.

Deanna Marie Galla, Siegel, Kelleher & Kahn, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiff.

Michael Beilewech, Jr., Magavern, Magavern & Grimm, L.L.P., Buffalo, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

HECKMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

The parties have consented to have the undersigned conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including trial and order of entry of final judgment, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, defendant's motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

This action was filed on April 17, 1995. Plaintiff claims that she was denied employment by defendant, Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc. d/b/a Families United Prevention and Resource Center ("Families United"), because of her association with her disabled child, in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(a), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.

The following facts are not disputed. In approximately October or November of 1993 she interviewed for a position at Families United as a "family mentor." At the time of the interview, plaintiff advised defendant that her daughter, Christina Houle, suffers from serious medical problems including epilepsy, Von Hillebrand's blood disease, asthma and chronic Epstein-Barr virus. In approximately January of 1994, defendant offered the position to plaintiff, effective February 23, 1994. Plaintiff accepted the offer, and attended orientation beginning on January 20, 1994.

In early February of 1994, plaintiff advised defendant's Project Coordinator Rashida Williams and Associate Project Director Marcia Obermiller that she would need a week off from her employment soon after it began so that she could take her daughter to the Mayo Clinic for consultation and testing. After discussing plaintiff's request with Program Director Dr. Christopher Blodgett, Ms. Williams advised plaintiff that she would be allowed to take the week off. However, Ms. Williams further advised plaintiff that, due to the mandatory nature of the training program for family mentors, which was structured to take place during the first two months of employment, plaintiff would need to commit to a specific time frame for reporting to work (Item 14, p. 5, ¶ 8(D)).

On February 28, 1994, Ms. Williams sent a letter to plaintiff which stated as follows:

Per our telephone conversation on 2/17/94, we regret the necessity to withdraw our offer of employment as family commitments will not allow you to fulfill your job function as mentor. While we are willing to assist by allowing a short-term period of time away from the job, the indefinite nature of your circumstances has forced us to withdraw our position.

In the future, should your circumstances change, please feel free to resubmit a resume.

(Item 14, Ex. D).

On approximately April 11, 1994, plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") (Item 17, Ex. C). Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she received a "Right to Sue" notice from the EEOC, and that she filed her complaint in this action within 90 days of receipt of the notice (Item 1, ¶ 4). The right to sue notice has not been made part of the record before this court.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant's withdrawal of its offer of employment constitutes discrimination in violation of the ADA and the state Human Rights Law because it was based on plaintiff's association with her disabled daughter. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence or inference of discriminatory animus (Item 13).

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, discovery materials, and affidavits on file "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reaching this determination, the court must assess whether there are any material factual issues to be tried while resolving ambiguities and drawing reasonable inferences against the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Coach Leatherware Co., Inc. v. AnnTaylor, Inc., 933 F.2d 162, 166-67 (2d Cir.1991). A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; see Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849, 112 S.Ct. 152, 116 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991).

Once the moving party has met its burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must come forward with enough evidence to support a jury verdict in its favor, and the motion will not be defeated merely upon a "metaphysical doubt" concerning the facts, or on the basis of conjecture or surmise. Bryant v. Maffucci, supra (citing Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). In order to avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party is under the obligation "to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Burke v. Bevona, 931 F.2d 998, 1001 (2d Cir.1991). "Entry of summary judgment indicates that no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the losing party." Coach Leatherware, Inc. v. AnnTaylor, Inc., supra, 933 F.2d at 167. Stated slightly differently, "[w]hen no rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party because the evidence to support its case is so slight, there is no genuine issue of material fact and a grant of summary judgment is proper." Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir.1994).

In Gallo, the Second Circuit explicitly cautioned trial courts to use extra care when deciding whether to grant summary judgment in employment discrimination cases. This is because, usually, the ultimate issue to be resolved in such cases is the employer's intent, an issue not particularly suited for summary adjudication. Id,; see also Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 997 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 829, 106 S.Ct. 91, 88 L.Ed.2d 74 (1985). As stated by the court:

Because writings directly supporting a claim of intentional discrimination are rarely, if ever, found among an employer's corporate papers, affidavits and depositions must be carefully scrutinized for circumstantial proof which, if believed, would show discrimination.... [T]he trial court's task at the summary judgment motion stage of the litigation is carefully limited to discerning whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be tried, not to deciding them. Its duty, in short, is confined at this point to issue-finding; it does not extend to issue-resolution.... It must be kept in mind that only by reference to the substantive law can it be determined whether a disputed fact is material to the resolution of the dispute.

Gallo, supra, 22 F.3d at 1224.

In this case, the substantive law is the ADA.

II. ADA.

The ADA prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action not only against "a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual ...," 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), but also against qualified individuals "because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 (1996); Tyndall v. National Educ. Centers, Inc. of California, 31 F.3d 209, 214 (4th Cir.1994). More specifically, the ADA's interpretive guidelines provide that an employer may not make decisions based on the "belie[f] that the [employee] would have to miss work" in order to take care of a disabled person. 29 C.F.R. § 1630, App. (1996).

When analyzing employment discrimination claims under the ADA, courts apply the same three-part test announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), that they apply to most other kinds of statutory discrimination claims. See, e.g., Duprey v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 910 F.Supp. 879, 883 (N.D.N.Y.1996)(citing Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 32 F.3d 718, 721-22 (2d Cir. 1994) (discrimination claim brought under the Rehabilitation Act), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 115 S.Ct. 1095, 130 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1995)). Under this test, the plaintiff first bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination. Lopez v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 930 F.2d 157, 160-61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 880, 112 S.Ct. 228, 116 L.Ed.2d 185 (1991); Passonno v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 889 F.Supp. 602, 606 (N.D.N.Y.1995). To establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show that (1) she was within the class of persons protected by the statute, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) she was qualified to perform the duties required of the position, and (4) her discharge occurred "under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination." Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir.1994); Passonno, supra, 889 F.Supp. at 606.

Plaintiff has clearly established her prima facie case. Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the burden therefore shifts to the employer "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for its adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, supra, 411 U.S....