top of page
A pen on a pile of documents

Appeals Court Issues Rare Reversal of Division of Human Rights Determination

Writer's picture: Joseph DierJoseph Dier

The NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department issued a decision on November 15, 2024, that reconfirmed an important principle regarding reasonable accommodations.  More interesting is the fact that this is an extremely rare case where an Appellate Division reversed a Division of Human Rights (DHR) determination following a hearing.


In Matter of Hirsch v. NYS Division of Human Rights, the Appellate Division reviewed a DHR determination after a hearing that dismissed the complaint against the employer, the NYS Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD).  The complainant, who was born deaf, applied for a job with OPWDD as a Direct Support Assistant for individuals with developmental disabilities.  The NYS Department of Civil Service set standards for this position, including certain hearing requirements, which the complainant could not meet given her lifelong condition.  This resulted in OPWDD withdrawing the complainant’s conditional offer of employment.


The complainant filed a complaint with DHR, which found probable cause that discrimination may have occurred and sent the matter to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).  The ALJ dismissed the complaint, concluding that OPWDD was bound by Civil Service’s standards, which set forth an essential function for the position that the complainant could not perform (in short, the ability to hear), and the employee never formally requested an accommodation.  DHR agreed with the ALJ and issued an order dismissing the complaint.  On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed DHR’s determination for two reasons.


First, when performing an analysis of whether a certain task is an essential function of a job, an employer is required to consider several factors, including, but not limited to, “the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, [and] the consequences of not requiring the plaintiff to perform the function.”  The Court held that DHR erred in considering only one factor – that Civil Service’s standards require Direct Support Assistants to meet certain hearing requirements.  The Court explained that no one factor is dispositive, and thus “DHR erred in making its determination based solely on Civil Service’s standards.”


Second, the Court rejected the argument that the complainant’s claim was meritless because she did not formally request an accommodation.  This is because even where an employee does not request a specific accommodation, the NYS Human Rights Law requires employers “to engage in an interactive dialogue regarding possible accommodations” once they become aware of an applicant’s or employee’s condition requiring accommodation.  In other words, an employer “has a duty to move forward to consider accommodation once the need for accommodation is known or requested.”


The result of this decision is that the matter will be sent back to DHR for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division’s ruling.  This decision highlights two important considerations for employers.


First, when reviewing whether an employee can perform the essential functions of their position even with a potential accommodation, it must consider all of the factors outlined in DHR’s regulations (found here) for making this determination.  This will show that the employer did its due diligence in considering an accommodation request and will go a long way if the employee decides to complain to DHR or the EEOC.


Second, as soon as an employer learns that an employee or prospective employee needs assistance with their job due to a medical condition, it should immediately engage the employee in the interactive process to determine if they need a reasonable accommodation and whether such accommodation would create an “undue hardship” for the employer.  One of the quickest ways to an adverse ruling is to ignore an employee’s medical condition or refuse to engage in the interactive process.


Please contact Dier Law any time if you are facing a similar situation or would like to discuss issues involving disabilities or reasonable accommodations.


0 comments

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page