ADA retaliation claim is reinstated on appeal: Tafolla Part III.

The Court of Appeals has found that the Suffolk County District Attorneys' Office may have retaliated against a plaintiff for seeking a reasonable accommodation request under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is part III of my discussion of the Tafolla ruling, issued on August 18.

The case is Tafolla v. Heilig. The first two parts of my discussion are at these links. Plaintiff determined that management was not going to honor her accommodation requests, in part because her supervisors had expressed hostility toward those requests and said she could not work without any physical restrictions and would have to take medical leave. Plaintiff's retaliation claim stems from being forced to take medical leave. 

What convinces the Court of Appeals (Bianco, Perez, and Sullivan in dissent) to reinstate plaintiff's retaliation claim (which the district court dismissed on summary judgment) is that (1) management was hostile toward the accommodation request, (2) management incorrectly told her the county did not offer light duty and she would have to take medical leave if she could not perform any physical labor, and (3) and this process unfolded in a compressed time period sufficient to make out a prima facie case of retaliation. One case holds that a four-month gap is enough to support a retaliation case; plaintiff falls within that time frame.

Defendant argued that plaintiff fails the causation element of any retaliation claim because she was actually fired one year after she took medical leave under Civil Service Law section 75, which allows the employer to terminate if the employee is out of work for one year. The Court of Appeals sees it differently. A forced medical leave may constitute an adverse action under the retaliation cases, and cases also hold that one year is not too long to create an issue of retaliatory intent if the employer was unable to terminate the employee any sooner for logistical or other reasons. The "first available opportunity" argument supports plaintiff's claim, which will head to trial in the Eastern District of New York.