08-6068-cv Shepheard v. New York City Correctional Department



### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT AMENDED S UMM ARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO N OT HAV E PR E C E D E N T IA L E FFE C T . C IT A T IONT O A SUMM ARY ORDER F ILED ON O R AFTER JANU A R Y 1 , 2 007, IS P ERMI TTED AND IS GOVERNED B Y FEDERAL RULE OF A PPE L L A T E PR OC E D U R E 32 . 1 A N D T HIS C OU R T ’S L OC A L R U L E 32 . 1. 1. WHE N C ITING A S U MMA R

Y OR D E R I N AD OC U ME N T FI L E D W IT H T HIS COU R T , A PAR T Y MU S T C IT E E IT HE R T HE FE D E R A L A PPE N DIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATAB ASE (WI TH TH E NOTATIO N “SUMM A R Y OR D E R ”) . A PA R T Y C IT IN GAS U MM ARY ORDER MU S T S E R

V E AC OPY OF IT ON A N Y PA R T Y N OT REP RESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 13 day

of January , two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: J OSEPH M. McLAUGHL I N, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges

.

__________________________________________ Rose Anna Shephe ard,

Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 08-6068-c v New Y ork City

Correc tional Depar

tment and City

of New Y ork, Defendants-A ppellees

. FOR APPEL L ANT: Rose Anna Shephe ard, pr o s e , F ay e tte vil le , N C. FOR APPEL L EE: Michae l A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, The City of Ne w York L aw Depa rtment; Marta Ross, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New Y ork, NY. Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Ma

rre ro, J. ).2 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED

. Appellant Rose Anna

Shephear d, pr o s e , appea ls the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

the City of Ne w York a

nd the City ’s Depa

rtment of Corre ction (“the City ”), dis mis sin gShe ph e ard ’s dis a bil ity dis c ri min atio n c omp la int purs ua nt t o th e Am e ri c ans wi th Disabilities Act (“A DA”) , 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq . Shephear d alleg ed that the City : (1) fa iled to provide her

with a re asonable acc ommodation for her alleg ed disability

of major de pression and anxiety ; (2) subjec ted her to unequal ter

ms and conditions of employ ment; (3) ter

minated he r; and (4 ) r e ta liate d a g a ins t he r, a ll b a se d o n h e r a lle g e d d isa bil ity . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th t he un de rl yingfa c ts, the pr oc e dura l hi sto ry of the c a se , a

nd the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. We r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and ask whether the district court prope rly conclude d that there was no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Se e Mi lle r v . W

olp off & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). In deter mining whe ther ther e ar e g enuine iss ue s o f m ate ri a l f

a c t, w e are “ re qu ir e d to re so lve a ll ambi g uit ie s a nd dr aw a ll p e rm iss ibl e fac tual infere nces in fa

vor of the pa

rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.” Stern v. Tru ste es o f Co lum bia Un iv . in theCity of N e w York, 131 F.3d 305, 312 ( 2d Cir. 1997)). Howeve r, “c onclusory

statements or mer e alleg ations [are] not sufficient to defe at a summary judgme nt motion.” Da v is v . Ne w York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 ( 2d Cir. 2002). We examine claims of disability discrimination pursuant to the ADA unde r the burde nshifting a naly sis established in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A plaintiff must first establish a pr im a fa c iec a se of dis c ri min atio n b y

sh ow ingthat: ( 1) sh e is a person with a disa

bility within the meaningof the AD A; (2) he r employ er is cove red by the AD A; (3 ) s he wa s q

ua lif ie d to pe rf

or m th e e sse nti a l f

un c tio ns of

he r p os iti on , w ithor

wi tho ut a3

rea sonable a ccommodation; and ( 4) she suff ere d an adve rse e mploy

ment action bec ause of

her disability

. McBridev. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co. , 583 F.3d 92, 96- 97 (2d Cir. 2009). Her e, with re spect to Shephea rd’s re asonable acc ommodation, unequal terms and conditions of employ

ment, and ter

mination claims, the district court prope rly g rante d summary judgme nt beca

use Shephea

rd fa iled to demonstrate that she was qua lified to perf orm the esse ntial functions of he r position with or without a reasona ble ac commodation. See M cBride , 583 F.3d at 97. Whil e Shephea

rd asse rts that her pe rsonal psychiatrist dee med her fit to return to work, the evidenc e does not e stablish that, even with the re asonable acc ommodation of an assig nment to a steady midnight shift, Shephear d was c apable of per formingthe essential f unctions of her position as a Correc tion Office r Captain, which inc luded re g ularly and re liably

repor ting to wor

k; quickly and ef ficiently respondingto emerg encie s; oversee ing the car e, custody , and contr ol of inmates; and super

vising subordinate offic ers. The evidenc e, includingmedical r ecor ds and a decla ration by the psycholog ist with t he DOC’s H ealth Mana g ement Division who was ultimately

responsible for

clea ringShephear d to return to duty , indicates that at the time she made he r re asonable acc ommodation request throug h the time of her termination, Shephea

rd suffe red f rom sy mptoms t hat, inte r a lia , c omp ro mis e d h e r a bil ity to b e fo c us e d a

nd a le rt , including e x cessive sle epingand g rog g iness, and ther efor e compr omised her a bility to perfor m the essential f

unctions of her

position. S hephea

rd ar g ues that her

psy chiatrist’s unsworn, contempora

neous note, whic h sug g ests that she wa s able to re turn to light duty if assig ned to the midnight shift, cre ates a

n issue of fa ct about her

ability to work. Howe ver, this note – eve n assuming it we re othe rwise a dmissibl e in evidenc e – does not c ontain any indication that the do c tor wa s f amil iar w iththe re le va

nt j ob dutie s, so a s to be a ble to o pin e on

She ph e ard ’s a

bil ity4

to perfor m the “esse ntial functions of . . . [her] posit ion.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). B eca use no
rea sonable jury

could find on this rec ord that she wa s qualified to per form her essential functions, Shephea

rd fa iled to make a pr im a fa c iecase of disability discrimination. See McBride , 583 F.3d at 97. Wit h respe ct to Shephear d’s re taliation claim, even a ssuming that this claim was

rea sonably

related to her a dminist rative c harg e and, the ref ore, pr operly

exhausted, the City

was
e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a

matte r o f l aw. Th e AD A p ro hib its an e mpl oye r f ro m r e ta liatin ga g a ins t an employ ee f

or eng ag ing in a ctivities protected by the statute. See42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). AD A reta liation claims are a lso analy zed under a

burden- shifting a

naly sis–first, the plaintiff must make

a prima fac ieshowing of re taliation; then, the burden shifts to the employ er to a rticulate a leg itimate, non-discriminatory rea son for the a dverse action; lastly , the plaintiff must provide evidenc e demonstrating that the pr offe red r eason is mer ely a pre text for discr imination. See Treglia v. Town of

Manlius , 313 F.3d 713, 720- 22 (2d Cir. 2002). He re, e ven assumingthat Shephear d made a pr im a fa c ieshowing of re taliation, the City offe red a leg itimate, nondiscriminatory

rea son for he r termination–name ly , her violation of DO C rules and re g ulations

re late d to he r s ic k le ave , a s e vid e nc e d b y the dis c ipl ina

ry c ha rg e s a g a ins t he r, wh ic h w e re up he ld afte r an a dminist rative he aring . Shephear d failed to e stablish that this proff ere d rea son for he r termination was a

prete x t for discrimination. Se e Tre gli a , 313 F.3d at 721-22. F o r th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED

. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :________________________