February 14

NYC Human Rights Law

NYC Human Rights Law

Matter of Cruz v Schriro, 51 Misc 3d 1203[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50363[U] (Sup Ct, NY County 2016).
• Plaintiff began working with the Department of Corrections and when he was sent to Rikers, to work or for training he would experience allergic reactions on several occasions. For example, On August 7, while attending graduation rehearsal at Rikers, he experienced hives and swelling of his face, and, in order to stay for the rehearsal, he used the Epipen to alleviate his symptoms. Later, on September 14, petitioner underwent a “uvulectomy,” surgery to minimize throat swelling and difficulty breathing during an allergic reaction. He went on approved sick leave until his employment was terminated. He asked to be accommodated but the Health Management Division refused to consider it. He then was fired for having over 50 absences, due to dermatology.
• The court found that petitioner sufficiently alleged, and presented sufficient evidence, including medical documentation, to show that his hives and other allergic reactions, even if their etiology is uncertain, represent a physical impairment and/or a record of a physical impairment falling within the NYCHRL’s broad definition of disability.
• The next issue was whether the DOC failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff or their lack of was due to it causing an undue hardship. The court held absent any response to petitioner’s request and any effort to engage with petitioner in any process to explore or consider what other possible accommodations could be made, either at Rikers or elsewhere within its system, respondents fail to establish that there was no feasible accommodation that they could provide.
• Finally, that the Court directed for a trial on the issues of whether respondents violated the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to reasonably accommodate petitioner’s disability and by terminating his employment, etc.

February 8

Appeal NYPD disqualification/Civil Service Disqualification

Daubman v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 195 AD2d 602 (2nd Dept 1993).
• The applicant, a police officer, applied for a position with the police department and passed the requisite examinations. The commission determined that the applicant was disqualified from eligibility based on an X-ray that revealed the presence of a back condition. The commission’s physician speculated that the condition could render the applicant more susceptible to a serious disability if he suffered a future back injury.
• The court held that the commission unlawfully discriminated against the applicant based on his mere membership in a class of persons with the same condition instead of on an individualized assessment of his particular abilities.
• The court held that the determination was arbitrary and capricious because it was premised upon speculation regarding possible future disability rather than fact or concrete medical evidence that the applicant was rendered unfit to perform his duties as a result of his condition.
• On appeal, the court granted the applicant’s petition, annulled the determination of the commission, and reinstated the applicant to the status of an eligible candidate for the position of police officer with the county.
• The court stated that there was no showing petitioner’s condition rendered him incapable of performing in reasonable manner activities involved in being police officer. Furthermore, the court held that the Commission’s determination was premised solely upon speculation regarding possible future disability, and record contains no concrete medical evidence demonstrating petitioner would likely be rendered unfit to perform police duties in future as consequence of his condition. Most importantly, the court decided that the Commission’s determination to be arbitrary and capricious because it is premised upon speculation rather than fact.

Read about this Civil Service Disqualification case here.

Visit civilservice.sheerinlaw.com

Appealing a New York Civil Service job disqualification

Appealing a New York Civil Service job disqualification

for more information about Civil Service Disqualification Cases.

February 6

NYPD disqualification- “Omission of Pertinent Facts”

If you want to be successful in being hired for a New York Civil Service job, especially Law Enforcement jobs such as NYPD you have to gather the accurate data before filling out your investigation paperwork.

Best policy is to go to any the Clerk of the Court in any county in which you were arrested or received a summons and get a Certificate of Disposition.

Get a LIFETIME driver’s abstract from the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles. Go to the DMV website for instructions on how to do this and give a couple of weeks to receive the document.

Get all school and work discipline records.

Failure to accurately record this information on your APD5 will not be excused by the hiring agency.

You will receive a disqualification notice with OMMISSION OF PERTINENT FACTS checked off.