Whitney v. Montefiore: Second Circuit Re-Affirms Limits of ADA Protection When Patient Safety and Professional Integrity Are Compromised

Introduction

Whitney v. Montefiore Medical Center, No. 23-7961-cv (2d Cir. July 28, 2025) is a summary order in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of an anesthesiology resident’s federal disability-discrimination suit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. Although summary orders carry no formal precedential value, they often signal the court’s view of developing doctrine. Here, the panel clarified the contours of three recurring ADA issues:

When a physician-resident with a disability is not a “qualified individual.”
How an employer’s provision of accommodations precludes failure-to-accommodate liability.
Why temporal proximity alone cannot prove retaliation where performance issues predate protected activity.

The plaintiff, Dr. Ryan Whitney, who has Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), alleged that Montefiore Medical Center and its affiliate Albert Einstein College of Medicine terminated him unlawfully. The district court (Engelmayer, J.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims and declined jurisdiction over city-law claims. The Second Circuit reviewed the record de novo and affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

Disparate Treatment / Wrongful Termination. The court held that Whitney was not a “qualified individual” because—despite a final opportunity with accommodations—he could not perform the essential functions of an anesthesiology resident and engaged in dishonest conduct that alone disqualified him.
Retaliation. Whitney failed to establish a causal link between his protected activity (EEOC charge and accommodation request) and the ultimate termination. Performance concerns long predated his complaint, defeating any inference of retaliation.
Failure to Accommodate. Montefiore’s nine specific accommodations were “plainly reasonable.” Minor imperfections in implementation did not create a triable issue.
Outcome. Summary judgment for defendants affirmed; state-law claims remain dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Stevens v. Rite Aid Corp., 851 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2017)

Reiterated that an employee rendered unable to perform essential job functions is not protected, even where disability causes the deficiencies. The panel invoked Stevens to underscore that patient-safety-critical failures and dishonesty negate qualification.

Noll v. IBM, 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015)

Supplies the “plainly-reasonable accommodation” standard once an employer has already offered measures. Cited to show Montefiore met (and exceeded) its obligations.

Porter v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Med. Ctr., 92 F.4th 129 (2d Cir. 2024)

Clarifies that accommodations need be effective, not perfect, and employers need not guarantee preferred accommodations. Applied directly to Whitney’s criticism of implementation flaws.

Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001)

Holds that where adverse actions began prior to protected conduct, temporal proximity cannot prove causation. This precedent doomed Whitney’s retaliation theory.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

The burden-shifting framework guided the court’s retaliation analysis, though the citation appears implicitly through Treglia v. Town of Manlius.

Additional Authorities:

Walsh v. NYC Housing Authority, 828 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2016) – summary-judgment standards.
Parker v. Sony Pictures Ent., 260 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2001) – distinction between poor performance caused by lack of accommodation versus inability despite accommodation.
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) – continuation of pre-existing plans is not retaliation.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Unqualified Status. A physician must provide safe, independent care and maintain professional integrity. Evidence showed repeated failures—failed rotations, board exam failures, inability to manage an airway emergency, altered medical records, and moonlighting violations. Such shortcomings, unrelated to ADHD accommodations, rendered Whitney unqualified under 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).
Reasonable Accommodation Provided. Montefiore temporarily rescinded termination, implemented nine of ten requested accommodations (mentors, structured feedback, checklists, scheduled breaks, etc.), and monitored performance for three rotations. The court held the package was effective even if not flawless, distinguishing aspirational promises from statutory requirements.
Retaliation Claim Collapse. Performance problems dated back to 2018; protected activity began in late-2020 after an initial termination notice. Using Slattery, the court ruled that continuation of already-set disciplinary tracks cannot reasonably be deemed retaliatory. Furthermore, the employer’s act of reinstating Whitney pending accommodations undermined any inference of retaliatory animus.
Failure to Accommodate Analysis. The court emphasized that liability attaches only where (i) the employee remains qualified with accommodation and (ii) the employer refuses a reasonable accommodation. Because Montefiore provided accommodations and Whitney still failed, element three of the Natofsky test collapsed.

C. Potential Impact

Medical Residency Programs. The order signals that residency programs may terminate trainees whose disabilities pose unresolved patient-safety concerns, so long as accommodations are attempted and documented.
Dishonesty as Disqualification. Alteration of medical records, even if a single incident, can render an otherwise qualified employee unqualified, sidestepping the accommodation analysis.
Employer Strategy. Offering a finite “last-chance with supports” period can bolster an employer’s defense that termination was performance-based, not discriminatory.
Litigation of Accommodation Imperfections. Minor deviations from agreed measures are unlikely to defeat summary judgment if the overall scheme was reasonable and offered in good faith.
Retaliation Jurisprudence. The decision re-emphasizes that chronic, well-documented performance issues will defeat causation in retaliation cases despite tight temporal proximity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Order. An abbreviated appellate disposition without precedential weight; it binds the parties but not future courts, though it may be cited under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1.
Qualified Individual (ADA). Someone who can perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodations. Essential functions are the job’s fundamental duties, not marginal tasks.
Reasonable Accommodation. A modification that enables a disabled employee to perform essential functions without imposing undue hardship on the employer. It must be sensible and effective, not necessarily the employee’s ideal option.
McDonnell Douglas Framework. A three-step burden-shifting method: (1) plaintiff’s prima facie case, (2) employer’s legitimate reason, (3) plaintiff’s proof of pretext.
Temporal Proximity. The closeness in time between protected activity and adverse action. Useful evidence of causation, but not when problems antedate the protected activity.
Patient Safety Principle. In healthcare, safety is an essential function; shortcomings directly impacting patient care override accommodation possibilities because the ADA does not require compromising safety.

Conclusion

Whitney v. Montefiore underscores that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act do not insulate medical professionals from termination when patient safety, competence, and honesty are in doubt—even where the employer has granted substantial accommodations. By reaffirming that:

a practitioner’s inability to meet critical clinical responsibilities (and ethical standards) renders him unqualified,
employers meet their duty by providing accommodations that are reasonable and documented, and
performance-related actions that long precede protected conduct negate retaliation,

the Second Circuit has provided a pragmatic roadmap for healthcare institutions navigating disability accommodation while safeguarding patients. Although the order lacks formal precedential force, its detailed reliance on established circuit law solidifies the message: accommodations cannot override fundamental competency and integrity requirements intrinsic to the practice of medicine.