Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Broderick v. Research Foundation of State University of New York

August 11, 2010

LAURA BRODERICK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

On August 5, 2010, Plaintiff Laura Broderick filed suit, alleging disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodation, and retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), the New York Civil Rights Law ("NYCRL"), and denial of equal protection under the New York and United States Constitutions. The Court has reviewed Ms. Broderick's Complaint. Having done so, the Court now sua sponte dismisses Ms. Broderick's First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth causes of action without prejudice and with leave to replead. The Court also sua sponte dismisses Ms. Broderick's Tenth Cause of Action, with prejudice.*fn1

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2009, Defendant The Research Foundation of the State University of New York ("the Foundation") hired Ms. Broderick as a Nurse Manager assigned to the Foundation's vascular and plastic surgery clinic. Compl. ¶ 10. On May 18, 2009, Ms. Broderick injured her hip but continued working and sought medical treatment. Id. ¶ 11. On July 31, 2009, Ms. Broderick reaggravated her injury. Id. ¶ 12. On August 2, 2009, she advised the Foundation that "she was temporarily disabled from working." Id.

On August 5, 2009, she sought medical treatment from Dr. Al Reilly. Id. Dr. Reilly provided her with a note asking the Foundation to excuse her from work between August 3 and August 7, 2009. Id. In addition, Dr. Reilly contacted the Foundation and asked them to put Ms. Broderick on "light duty." Id. ¶ 13.

The Foundation refused to give Ms. Broderick "light duty." Id. ¶ 13. Instead, the Foundation placed her on leave without pay and instructed her to keep it informed regarding her medical status. Id.

Over the next several days, the Foundation and Ms. Broderick exchanged several messages concerning her condition. On August 13, 2009, Ms. Broderick spoke with Kathy Volpe, the Foundation's Office Manager. Id. ¶ 16. Among other things, Ms. Volpe asked Ms. Broderick to provide updated information concerning her medical status. Id. Ms. Broderick advised her that she had attempted to get an updated report from Dr. Reilly, and would try again the next day. Id. On August 14 and August 17, Ms. Broderick tried, but failed, to reach Dr. Reilly. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. On August 18, Dr. Reilly's office told Ms. Broderick that Dr. Reilly could see her on August 19. Id. ¶ 19. Ms. Broderick then relayed that information to the Foundation. Id.

On August 19, Dr. Reilly treated Ms. Broderick. Id. ¶ 20. He advised her not to return to work until September 3, and provided her with a letter to give the Foundation. Id. Ms. Broderick then faxed the letter to the Foundation which, in turn, contacted Dr. Reilly and asked for more information. Id. Dr. Reilly complied. Id. He then told the Foundation that, because they rejected Ms. Broderick's light duty request, she should not work until her September 3 reevaluation. Id.

That same day, the Foundation sent Ms. Broderick a letter terminating her for "unauthorized leave and failure to comply with the Research Foundation's Leave Policy." Id. ¶ 21.

On August 5, Ms. Broderick filed suit, asserting ten causes of action.

DISCUSSION

I. The Discrimination and Constitutional Claims

Ms. Broderick's First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth claims allege disability discrimination (including failure to reasonably accommodate), under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the NYSHRL, and the NYCRL.

Regardless of the statute sued under, the same standards apply.*fn2 See Emmons v. City University of New York, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 2246413, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). Ms. Broderick must show that she is a "qualified individual" with a disability. 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12112(a), 12132. To do so, she must plead that: (1) Defendant is subject to the ADA; (2) she is "disabled" within the meaning of the statute; and (3) she was subject to some adverse ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.