Landlord Didn't Give Attorney-Employee Reasonable Accommodation During Pandemic

LVT Number: #32261

Landlord's employee, an in-house landlord-tenant attorney, sued landlord and its managing agent for disability discrimination. In March 2020, landlord had instructed the attorney and other legal staff to work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, landlord instructed employees to return to in-person work at its offices. At that time, the plaintiff was over 65 years old and had some medical conditions. The attorney asked the court to rule in his favor without a trial on the question of liability for disability discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law (NYHRL).

Landlord's employee, an in-house landlord-tenant attorney, sued landlord and its managing agent for disability discrimination. In March 2020, landlord had instructed the attorney and other legal staff to work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, landlord instructed employees to return to in-person work at its offices. At that time, the plaintiff was over 65 years old and had some medical conditions. The attorney asked the court to rule in his favor without a trial on the question of liability for disability discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Landlord claimed that it wasn't the attorney's employer and asked the court to dismiss the claims against this entity. The court ruled against landlord, finding that landlord and its managing agent shared a common management that controlled the conditions of the plaintiff's employment.

The court's magistrate judge recommended a ruling for the attorney on his disability discrimination claim under the NYC Human Rights Law. The court found that the attorney showed that he was entitled to a reasonable accommodation and that landlord's failure to provide his requested accommodation was directly connected to his employment termination. The attorney sent landlord an email stating that he had underlying conditions and couldn't return to the office but that he could continue working from home. He submitted a doctor's note in support of his request. Landlord argued that the attorney then retired from his employment. But the court found that landlord denied the attorney's request to continue working from home and failed to engage in the cooperative dialogue that was required by law, which effectively forced him either to quit his job in order to preserve his health or else to continue working without adequate protective measures and then succumb to debilitating impairment.

 

Goldman v. Sol Goldman Invs. LLC: Case No. 20-CV-06727, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14097 (SDNY; 8/5/22; Netburn, J)