Moye v. Mount Sinai Hosp.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified and otherwise affirmed an order addressing claims by Muslim Mount Sinai employees who alleged religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue after refusing to shave their beards to pass N-95 respirator fit testing. The court upheld dismissal of the selective-enforcement discrimination claims but held that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate and cooperative-dialogue claims. The court also reinstated Brian Jones's corresponding claims, holding that temporarily accepting an offered transfer did not categorically bar those claims.

Holdings

1. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims that Mount Sinai selectively enforced the N-95 fit-test policy based on religion because all Building Services personnel were required to pass the fit test, defendants offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory safety reason, and plaintiffs failed to show pretext, discriminatory motivation, or disparate treatment of similarly situated non-Muslim employees.
2. Summary judgment was properly denied to all parties on Moye's and Shaw's failure-to-accommodate claims because factual issues remained regarding whether plaintiffs could remain in their existing jobs without N-95 respirators while avoiding COVID-positive areas or waiting before entering those areas, and whether accommodating them in their current positions would impose an undue hardship.
3. Summary judgment was properly denied on Moye's and Shaw's cooperative-dialogue claims because the record raised factual issues as to whether defendants cut the interactive process short and refused to consider accommodating plaintiffs in their existing positions.
4. An employee's acceptance of an accommodation offered as the only alternative to forced resignation does not categorically preclude the employee from claiming that the accommodation was unreasonable or that the employer failed to provide a cooperative dialogue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' religious-discrimination claims based on selective enforcement of the N-95 fit-test policy.
2. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on plaintiffs' claims that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate their religious observance under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
3. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on plaintiffs' claims that defendants failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue under the New York City Human Rights Law.
4. Whether Jones's temporary acceptance of an alternative position categorically barred his failure-to-accommodate and cooperative-dialogue claims.

Disposition

other