SIMEONE v. SUFFOLK

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 2005-09587.

Attorney(S)

Cronin Byczek, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Christina A. Leonard and George C. Fontana, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (John R. Petrowski of counsel), for respondents.

Judges

Peter B. Skelos

Acts

The Public Health And Welfare — Equal Opportunity For Individuals With Disabilities — Findings And Purpose
Labor — Age Discrimination In Employment — Congressional Statement Of Findings And Purpose

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Joseph Simeone, brought an action against the County of Suffolk and other respondents alleging employment discrimination based on disability and age, as well as retaliation, in violation of Executive Law § 296, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Specifically, Simeone claimed that the defendants unlawfully refused to promote him to the rank of police sergeant due to these discriminatory and retaliatory motives. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appealed this order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of disability discrimination under Executive Law § 296 and the ADA by demonstrating qualification to perform the essential functions of the police sergeant position.
Whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of age discrimination under Executive Law § 296 and the ADEA by demonstrating qualification to perform the essential functions of the police sergeant position.
Whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of retaliation by establishing a causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment action.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Thide v New York State Dept. of Transp., 27 AD3d 452, 453	Establishing prima facie case of disability discrimination requires showing qualification to perform essential job functions.	Used to confirm plaintiff’s failure to establish qualification for the police sergeant position under disability discrimination claims.
Heyman v Queens Vil. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., 198 F3d 68, 72	Standard for disability discrimination under the ADA.	Supported the requirement that plaintiff show ability to perform essential job functions.
Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629	Prima facie age discrimination requires qualification to perform essential job functions.	Applied to assess plaintiff’s failure to establish qualification under age discrimination claims.
Hardy v General Elec. Co., 270 AD2d 700, 701	Qualification standard for age discrimination claims.	Reinforced the necessity for plaintiff to demonstrate ability to perform essential functions.
Epstein v Kalvin-Miller Intl., Inc., 21 F Supp 2d 400, 403	Qualification requirement for age discrimination prima facie case.	Supported court’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to meet this requirement.
Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313	Elements to establish prima facie retaliation claim.	Used to determine plaintiff failed to show causal connection between protected activity and adverse action.
Gordon v New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 F3d 111, 116	Retaliation claim elements, including causal connection requirement.	Applied to affirm dismissal of retaliation claim for lack of causal nexus.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiff’s claims under the framework for employment discrimination and retaliation. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Executive Law § 296 and the ADA, the plaintiff needed to show that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the police sergeant position, with or without reasonable accommodation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish this qualification, citing relevant precedents that define this requirement.

Similarly, for age discrimination under Executive Law § 296 and the ADEA, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate qualification for the position. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet this burden.

Regarding retaliation, the court applied the standard requiring proof that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, the employer’s knowledge of such activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the activity and the adverse action. The plaintiff failed to establish the necessary causal connection. Consequently, the court held that summary judgment dismissing the complaint was appropriate.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The decision directly results in dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims without setting new legal precedent. It reinforces the established legal standards requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate qualification for the position in discrimination claims and a causal link in retaliation claims to survive summary judgment.

Show full summary ...

JOSEPH SIMEONE, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK et al., Respondents.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants unlawfully refused to promote him to the rank of police sergeant because of discrimination on the basis of disability and age and retaliation, in violation of, inter alia, Executive Law § 296, the Americans with Disabilities Act ( 42 USC § 12101 et seq., hereinafter the ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( 29 USC § 621 et seq., hereinafter the ADEA). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on its determination that the plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination based on disability or age, or retaliation. We agree.

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under either the Executive Law or the ADA, a plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that he or she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, with or without a reasonable accommodation ( see Executive Law § 292; Thide v New York State Dept. of Transp., 27 AD3d 452, 453; Heyman v Queens Vil. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., 198 F3d 68, 72 ). Similarly, to make a prima facie showing of age discrimination under either the Executive Law or the ADEA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position at issue ( see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629; Hardy v General Elec. Co., 270 AD2d 700, 701; Epstein v Kalvin-Miller Intl., Inc., 21 F Supp 2d 400, 403). Here, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of either disability or age discrimination because he failed to establish that he could perform the essential functions of the position of police sergeant.

The plaintiff also failed to make a prima facie showing of retaliation. To make a prima facie showing of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she has engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) he or she suffered an adverse employment action based upon the activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action ( see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313; Thide v New York State Dept. of Transp., supra; Gordon v New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 F3d 111, 116). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.