Thide v. New York State Department of Transportation
| Decision Date | 07 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2004-09327. |
| Citation | 27 A.D.3d 452,2006 NY Slip Op 01609,811 N.Y.S.2d 418 |
| Parties | WILLIAM THIDE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant New York State Department of Transportation (hereinafter the DOT), alleged, inter alia, that he was treated unfairly and ultimately discharged because he suffered from a degenerative disc condition in his back and was retaliated against for making a request that the DOT accommodate his disability by not assigning him tasks that adversely affected his back condition.
To state a prima facie case of employment discrimination due to a disability under Executive Law § 296, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffers from a disability and that the disability engendered the behavior for which he or she was discriminated against in the terms, conditions, or privileges of his or her employment (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554 [1994]; Timashpolsky v State Univ. of N.Y. Health Science Ctr. at Brooklyn, 306 AD2d 271 [2003]). If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the disability prevented the employee from performing the duties of the job in a reasonable manner or that the employer's action was motivated by legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, supra at 558; Timashpolsky v State Univ. of N.Y. Health Science. Ctr. at Brooklyn, supra at 272). If the employer establishes that it had valid nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the stated reasons were pretextual (see Cooks v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 278 [2001]).
The DOT established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's employment discrimination claim by proffering sufficient evidence that the plaintiff's employment was terminated for legitimate reasons unrelated to his alleged disability (see Clemens v MTA N.Y. City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 636 [2005]; Blum v New York Stock Exch., 298 AD2d 343, 344 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Haviland v Yonkers Pub. Schools, 21 AD3d 527 [2005]; Timashpolsky v State Univ. of N.Y. Health Science. Ctr. at Brooklyn, supra at 272). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vinokur v. Bank
...v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 313, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 (2004); Thide v. New York State Dep't of Transp., 27 A.D.3d 452, 454, 811 N.Y.S.2d 418 (2d Dep't 2006). The parties do not dispute that plaintiff has satisfied the first two elements of a prima facie retaliat......
-
Brunache v. MV Transp., Inc.
...action (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 313, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 ; Thide v. New York State Dept. of Transp., 27 A.D.3d 452, 454, 811 N.Y.S.2d 418 ). An employee engages in a "protected activity" by "opposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination"......
-
Posteraro v. Northport-East Northport Union Free Sch. Dist.
...2011) (quoting Fall v. N.Y. State United Teachers, 289 F. App'x 419, 420 (2d Cir. 2008)); see also Thide v. N.Y. State Dep't of Transp., 27 A.D.3d 452, 453, 811 N.Y.S.2d 418 (2d Dep't 2006). Defendants concede that Plaintiff's broken ankle is a "disability" within the meaning of the NYSHRL ......
-
Reyes v. Brinks Global Servs. United States, Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998; Cenzon–Decarlo v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 101 A.D.3d 924, 926, 957 N.Y.S.2d 256; Thide v. New York State Dept. of Transp., 27 A.D.3d 452, 454, 811 N.Y.S.2d 418). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' proffer......