A manager’s comment has allowed an employee to keep her disability discrimination claim alive, according to a recent court ruling.
In Manon v. 878 Education, LLC (No. 12-cv-3476 (March 4, 2015)), a worker alleged that she was fired because her daughter has a disability; her claims survived summary judgment because she was able to show that her manager told her to choose between her job and her daughter.
Facts of the Case
Elizabeth Manon worked as a receptionist at a college. She sat at the front desk, answered phone calls, ensured that student paperwork was in order and served as the “first impression” to prospective students and parents.
During the 132 work days that she was employed at the school, she left work early 54 times, arrived late 27 times and was absent 17 days, according to court documents. Many of her absences were to care for her infant daughter who had reactive airway disease. Her daughter required regular treatments and was frequently hospitalized. Manon’s supervisor reprimanded her twice: once for arriving late to work and once for inappropriate attire.
After one absence to care for her daughter, the college fired Manon. During that meeting, her supervisor said he needed someone without children to work at the front desk. When she became upset and asked for a second chance, he said, “How can you guarantee me that [ ] two weeks from now your daughter is not going to be sick again? … So, what is it, your job or your daughter?”
She sued, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City law.
Court Weighs In
In addition to protecting individuals with disabilities from discrimination, the ADA also protects those with a record of a disability, regarded as having a disability and associated with someone with a disability.
To show associational discrimination under the ADA, courts usually use a burden-shifting framework that requires an employee to present evidence that suggests discrimination; the employer then offers evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, the district court explained. An employee with direct evidence, or a “smoking gun,” however, does not need to make such a showing to survive summary judgment.
Manon has clearly presented direct evidence, the court said. The supervisor’s remarks could easily be viewed as a smoking-gun admission that: (1) he believed Manon’s daughter was disabled; and (2) her termination was directly motivated by her association with her daughter.
Causation
The employer, however, argued that Manon was fired because of performance issues and that even though she has presented direct evidence of discrimination, she still must show that the discrimination was the “but for” cause of her firing.
The court acknowledged that while some courts have allowed for a “mixed motive” standard in ADA cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 2013 age discrimination suit that plaintiffs must show that discrimination was the “but for” cause of an adverse employment action — not just a motivating factor. Because the ADA closely tracks the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Manon should be held to that same standard, the college argued.
It is undisputed that Manon had performance problems, the court said, but the manager’s statements made while firing her one day after an absence to care for her daughter raise a triable issue of fact. Regardless of whether Manon must show that discrimination was the sole reason for her termination, “disputed issues of fact preclude resolution of this issue in a motion for summary judgment,” the court said, denying the employer’s motion.
Manon’s New York City Human Rights Law claim also survived summary judgment. Under that law, a plaintiff only needs to show that discrimination was a motivating factor of the adverse employment action. Because the NYCHRL standard for associational disability discrimination is far less onerous than the “but for” standard, Manon has raised a triable issue of material fact under the NYCHRL, the court said, ordering a trial on both of her claims.