Tafolla v. Heilig

• Docket Number: 21-2327,August Term 2022
• Decision Date: 18 August 2023
• Citation: Tafolla v. Heilig, 80 F.4th 111 (2nd Cir. 2023)
• Parties: Kim L. TAFOLLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward HEILIG, Division Chief, Joseph Carroll, County of Suffolk, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

80 F.4th 111

Kim L. TAFOLLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward HEILIG, Division Chief, Joseph Carroll, County of Suffolk, Defendants-Appellees.^*

No. 21-2327

August Term 2022

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Argued: January 10, 2023

Decided: August 18, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Seybert, J.)

Stephen Bergstein, Bergstein & Ullrich, New Paltz, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Hope Senzer Gabor, Assistant County Attorney, for Dennis M. Cohen, Suffolk County Attorney, Suffolk County Department of Law, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Sullivan, Bianco, and Pérez, Circuit Judges.

Judge Sullivan concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate opinion.

Joseph F. Bianco, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Kim Tafolla appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Seybert, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees County of Suffolk (the "County"), Suffolk County District Attorney's Office Division Chief Edward Heilig, and Suffolk County District Attorney's Office Special Investigations Bureau ("SIB") Chief Joseph Carroll (collectively, "defendants"). Tafolla was a Clerk Typist in the District Attorney's Office from 2008 until her employment in the SIB was terminated in 2015. She alleged that defendants discriminated against her based on her disability and retaliated against her for seeking an accommodation for that disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Tafolla asserted that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her request to not be assigned archiving tasks based upon the medical documentation she provided to defendants regarding her physical limitations. Tafolla further alleged that defendants retaliated against her for making the accommodation request by forcing her to go on medical leave, which ultimately led to her termination.

On appeal, Tafolla argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her reasonable accommodation and retaliation claims. We agree. Construing the evidence most favorably to Tafolla, a rational jury could find that archiving was not an essential function of Tafolla's position and that defendants failed to provide a reasonable workplace accommodation for her disability. We similarly conclude that disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on Tafolla's retaliation claim. With respect to the Section 1983 claim against the County, because Tafolla has not presented any arguments on appeal challenging the district court's decision, we deem that claim abandoned and affirm.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment as to Tafolla's Section 1983 claim and VACATE the district court's judgment with respect to the reasonable accommodation and retaliation claims. The case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background¹

As a Clerk Typist, Tafolla performed "general office duties," including answering calls, typing various legal documents, and photocopying. Joint App'x at 140. Her responsibilities also included a task called archiving, which typically involved entering information from court files into a database after a prosecutor closed a criminal case. Following a car accident, during which Tafolla suffered a spine injury when her vehicle was rear-ended at a stoplight, she sent an email to SIB Chief Joseph Carroll dated December 6, 2013 ("First Accommodation Request") explaining that her "neck, back and ribs are extremely sore" and requesting that another employee temporarily take over her archiving responsibilities. Id. at 978. Carroll responded by asking Tafolla to provide a doctor's note indicating any necessary restrictions.

On December 10, 2013, Tafolla left a note from a physician assistant at her spine surgeon's office in Carroll's inbox. The note instructed, on separate lines, "- No lifting over 5 pounds, - No bending, pushing exercises" and that Tafolla would be revaluated in two months. Id. at 980. Carroll did not acknowledge the note until January 7, 2014, when he and an assistant district attorney asked Tafolla why certain files had not been archived. Tafolla responded that the note established that she was not physically able to do the archiving because of her injury. Carroll then told Tafolla that the note only restricted her from lifting files heavier than five pounds.² In particular, Tafolla testified:

[Carroll] proceeded to say to me, oh, well, the doctor said that you couldn't lift files weighing over five pounds, when he proceeded to walk over to the desk in front of me and pick up one of the lighter files, and he was, like, mocking me, laughing at me, I don't think this file weighs five pounds, and he just kind of flung it back on the desk.

Id. at 189. Tafolla again explained to Carroll, "I think you're missing the point. . . . [M]y doctor's note does not just say that I cannot lift items weighing over five pounds. It says that I'm not supposed to be doing any bending or pushing exercises, and that I would be re-evaluated in two months." Id. at 190. According to Tafolla, Carroll kept "carrying on, ranting," and told her that she should "get a box, put it on the floor and sit in [her] seat and get it done." Id. at 190-91. When Tafolla again explained that she was not able to perform the "mechanics" of moving the documents from her desk to the floor, Carroll responded that, if Tafolla was unable to complete the archiving, she would be transferred or put on disability:

[Carroll] told me that if I was not happy here, he would be happy to find me another place to go. Now, that's when I said to him, I don't know what me being happy in SIB has anything to do with the injury that I sustained from my car accident. I said, I am perfectly happy here, and he said that if I did not do the archiving and I could not do my job the way it was intended to be done, that he would call Ed Heilig, my division chief[, and my union representatives], and I will get them over here and we will discuss having you moved[. Y]ou're going to get put out . . . I'm going to have you put out on disability, is what he said to me, and then I started to plead with him. Joe, I have a family. I have a rent payment, I have car payments, I have car insurance, I cannot afford to go out on disability. And he told me, well, then do your job.

Id. at 191. After the conversation with Carroll, Tafolla "did what he told [her]" and completed some archiving, which caused her pain. Id. at 192.

The next day, January 8, Tafolla called in sick and had an appointment with her spine surgeon, Dr. Robert M. Galler, who provided her with a formal letter to the County stating that Tafolla was "unable to lift, bend, twist, or push any object over five pounds" and that she was "able to perform secretarial work but no physical duties at this time." Id. at 983. When Tafolla returned to work on January 9, there were files piled in front of her desk.

About a week later, on January 14, after seeking advice from a union representative and attempting to avoid any additional archiving, Tafolla faxed an accommodation request, along with Dr. Galler's letter, to Human Resources ("Second Accommodation Request"). Immediately after receiving the Second Accommodation Request, Diane Stankewicz from Human Resources called Tafolla and informed her "that the [C]ounty doesn't offer light duty assignments, and that it would be up to [Carroll] whether or not he wanted to accommodate." Id. at 212. Caroline Stolz from Risk Management repeated substantially the same information to Tafolla later that day.

On January 15, Tafolla worked a full day. In the afternoon, one of the assistant district attorneys gave Tafolla documents to archive. By the end of the day, Tafolla believed that her accommodation request had been rejected and that she was not physically able to fulfill her full job responsibilities. When Tafolla left the office, she "felt in [her] mind that [she] probably was not going to go back after everything that [she] had been through." Id. at 220.

Division Chief Edward Heilig, in a memorandum dated January 16 (the "Heilig Memorandum"), responded to the Second Accommodation Request. He explained that Carroll had previously granted Tafolla's First Accommodation Request "wherein [she] would not have to deal with any file weighing over five pounds" and that she was "hereby advised . . . not to 'lift, bend, twist or push any object over five pounds' and that if [she] believe[d] any file . . . weigh[ed] in excess of five pounds[, she] was not to touch that file." Id. at 985. He added "[t]hese accommodations allow you to perform 'secretarial work' . . . consistent with the conditions set by your doctor in his January 8, 2014 letter." Id. Finally, Heilig explained that "the [C]ounty does not have light duty assignments. If you are not capable of performing your job duties for any reason, including medical limitations, you will have to be out of work on medical leave until you can return to work with a Doctor's note indicating that you can work with no restrictions." Id. Tafolla interpreted this letter as denying her accommodation requests.

Tafolla ultimately took disability leave. In 2015, the County terminated her employment, pursuant to New York Civil Service Law § 73, due to her one-year absence from her employment with the County.

II. Procedural History

On August 21, 2017, Tafolla filed a pro se complaint and, after retaining counsel, filed an amended complaint on January 22, 2018, alleging claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under Section 1983, the ADA and NYSHRL.³ After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment.

On August 19, 2021, the district court granted defendants' motion on all claims....