The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Files Disability Discrimination Case on Behalf of Former DVS Asst. Comm. Jamal Othman Against NYC Mayoral Candidate and Former DVS Commissioner Ret. General Loree Sutton

jaml photo..jpg

On November 7, 2019, U.S. Marine Corps veteran Jamal Othman filed a disability discrimination, retaliation, and interference complaint against the City of New York’s Department of Veterans’ Services (“DVS”), New York City mayoral candidate and former DVS Commissioner Ret. Gen. Loree Sutton, and current DVS Assistant Commissioner Jason Parker. 

Most recently the Assistant Commissioner for Engagement & Community Services for DVS, Mr. Othman worked as an Assistant Commissioner for DVS from 2016-2019.  He previously served as the Chief of Staff for Mayor Bloomberg for the New York City Mayor’s Office of Veterans’ Affairs (2012-2014) and the Deputy Director of the New York State Division of Veterans’ Affairs (2014-2016). 

Mr. Othman’s complaint alleges that, despite DVS’s stated mission of supporting NYC veterans, including those with mental health disabilities, former Commissioner Sutton engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against DVS’s military veteran employees with mental health disabilities, including targeting them for termination of employment from DVS.

The complaint alleges that shortly after Mr. Othman disclosed his service-connected mental health disability, former Commissioner Sutton demoted him, pressured him to resign, terminated his employment (by way of an armed escort out of DVS’s offices), and banned him from entering any property under the jurisdiction of DVS.

The complaint further alleges that former Commissioner Sutton created a hostile work environment for veterans with mental health disabilities.

The complaint alleges that her conduct included: (1) telling Mr. Othman that she wanted to find a reason to fire a veteran with a mental health disability in part because of their mental health disability (in addition to their political views); (2) expressing her pleasure, and becoming visibly giddy, after hearing of the departure of a veteran with a mental health disability from DVS; and (3) repeatedly instructing Mr. Othman “no more troubled veterans.”

The complaint additionally alleges that five days after former Commissioner Sutton terminated his employment because of his mental health disability and/or protected activity, she testified about veteran mental health to the New York City Council’s committees on Veterans and Mental Health, Disabilities, and Addiction, Oversight Hearing on “Veteran Suicide and Mental Health.”

Filed in the Southern District of New York pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), the fourteen-count complaint’s claims include: (1) disability discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) harassment and hostile work environment; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) interference; and (6) aiding and abetting liability.  The complaint also utilizes the NYCHRL’s 2017 amendments enacting anti-discrimination protections for uniformed service members (i.e. veterans), which Mr. Othman assisted in passing while at DVS.

Mr. Othman’s complaint seeks back pay, front pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages and FMLA liquidated damages from former Commissioner Sutton and Assistant Commissioner Parker in their individual capacities.

On November 6, 2019, The New York Times reported that former Commissioner Sutton had declared her candidacy for Mayor of New York City.

The case is Othman v. The City of New York et al., No. 19 Civ. 10351, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Media Contact: Cyrus E. Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC (646) 560-3208 cd@theduggerlawfirm.com

Press release is available here.

Recently Pregnant Employees Also Protected From Pregnancy Discrimination For Four Months

Citing recent decisions from within the Second Circuit, New York federal Judge J. Paul Oetken found that protection from pregnancy discrimination extends to include recently pregnant women in addition to pregnant women:

Katherine Albin alleged viable pregnancy discrimination claims against Thomas Pink Inc., its corporate parent LVMH Moet Louis Vuitton Inc., and two supervisors under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and New York state and city law, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said.  It found that the promotion denial may have occurred three and a half months after Albin gave birth to her first child.

Judge J. Paul Oetken cited emerging case law within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that women who are four months or less removed from giving birth are still protected by Title VII's prohibition against pregnancy discrimination."

While observing that at some point after a pregnancy ends protection from pregnancy discrimination also comes to an end:

"[P]regnant women, women who very recently gave birth, and women on maternity leave are unquestionably within the protected class of pregnant persons, 'at some point in time such women are no longer 'affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions' and, thus, are not protected.'" (internal citations omitted) (link)

the court found that protection generally continues for approximately four months after a pregnancy:

"Distinguishing among previously pregnant women to determine who is still affected by pregnancy requires selecting a temporal cutoff based on the facts of the given case.  While ultimately dependent on the factual situation of a specific claim, a pattern has developed in this Circuit establishing a loose line at approximately four months from the date of birth." (internal citations omitted) (link)

In my view, along with age and disability discrimination, pregnancy discrimination is one of the more prevalent forms of discrimination today.  Unlike explicit race and gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination (in its varied forms) does not carry the same heavy stigma and is surprisingly prevalent. 

Unfortunately, although prevalent, it is often unrecognized and/or unreported.

This decision goes a long way to help advance anti-discrimination protections for pregnant and recently pregnant employees.

 

EEOC Settles ADA Leave Suit for $1.35 Million With Princeton Healthcare

The EEOC has settled another ADA leave as a reasonable accommodation case.

Princeton HealthCare System, which operates the University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro and several other medical facilities, will pay $1.35 million and will undertake significant remedial measures to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced today.
The EEOC’s suit alleged that the hospital’s fixed leave policy failed to consider leave as a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the EEOC, Princeton HealthCare’s leave policy merely tracked the requirements of the federal Family Medical Leave Act and employee leaves were limited to a maximum of 12 weeks. The policy meant that employees who were not eligible for leave were fired after being absent for a short time, and many more were fired once they were out more than 12 weeks.
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
Under the consent decree settling the suit, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert, the hospital is prohibited from having a blanket policy that limits the amount of leave time an employee covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act may take.
. . .
Princeton HealthCare also agreed that it will not subject employees to progressive discipline for ADA-related absences, and will provide training on the Americans with Disabilities Act to its workforce. (link)