New York Manufacturer Justified in Terminating Worker Despite Worker’s Filing of OSHA Complaint and Claim for Workers’ Compensation

Working in a New York plant that repaired and manufactured turbine blades for gas turbine engines, a worker was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and filed a claim for workers’ compensation.  The worker also submitted a complaint to OSHA about the workplace conditions at the plant, including inadequate ventilation, lack of respiratory protection, and insufficient sound protection.  OSHA inspected and proposed a minor fine.  The worker failed a medical examination to determine whether he was physically able to use a respirator and later suffered a shoulder injury that prevented him from going to work.  The Social Security Administration found that he was “disabled” and lacked the ability even to perform sedentary work on a full-time basis.  The following year, the company that owned the plant suffered considerable declines in revenue and engaged in seven rounds of layoffs affecting approximately 44% of the staff, including the worker in question.

The worker filed suit for claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment yesterday to the plant owner.  The court concluded that the worker was not qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and thus could not meet the third prong of the prima facie case required under the McDonnell Douglas framework, and also that the employer pointed to a legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale for the discharge given the significant decline in sales and the business’s shift away from this worker’s expertise.  On the retaliation claims, the court concluded that the worker failed to show that the termination was prompted by either his filing for workers’ compensation or his OSHA complaint.  The court acknowledged that the temporal proximity between his filings and termination often could raise a question of fact on causation, the strong evidence of independent reasons for his termination in this particular case warranted summary judgment for the employer.