J udg e Richar d J . Sulli van of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of 1 New Y ork, sitting by

desig nation. 1 08- 1330- cv ( L) K i nneary v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk



### UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E 

### S ECOND 

### C IRCU IT

_____________________ August Term, 2008 (Argued: April 3, 2009 De cided: Mar ch 19, 2010)

Do c ke t N o. 08 -1 33 0- c v( L ); 08 -1 63 0- c v( XA P)

_____________________ J OSEPH KI

NNEARY, Plain tif f- Ap pe lle e -C ro ss- Ap pe lla nt, v. C IT Y O F N E W Y O R K , M A R S H A R O T H E M , i n d i v i d u a l l y , Z O E A

NN C A M P B E LL, i n d i v i d u a l l y, an d L O U IS T A Z Z I, i n d i v i d

u a l l y. De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts -C

ro ss- Ap pe lle es.

_______________________ Be fore : C A B RA

N E S an d H A LL Circuit Judges , SUL L I VAN, District Judge 1 Appea l from the Oc tober 1, 2007 judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Marr ero, Judge ) followinga jury verdic t for Joseph Kinneary (“K innear y ”) f inding discr imination under the Amer icans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ), Ne w York State H uman Rights L aw (N.Y. Exec. L aw § 296 et seq. ) and N ew York City Human Rig hts L aw (N.Y. Admin. Code § 8-107) . We hold that because Kinnear y was offe red, but fa iled to qualify for, his ca

ptain’s license under the acc ommodation to which he claims he wa s entitled, Kinnear y beca me unqualified to pe rfor

m the essential func tions of his job
and the re wa s n o v iol a tio n o f t he Am e ri c ans wi th D isa

bil iti e s A c t. F ur

the r, the Ap pe lla

nts did2

no t vi olate state or

loc a l di sc ri min a tio n la

ws by imp le me nti ngfe de ra l r e g ulatio ns . We re ve rs e and re mand.

________________________

V I C TOR I A S CA LZO (Stephen McG rath, on the brief ) for Michae l A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of Ne w York, N ew Yor

k, N.Y., for De

fe nd an tsAp pe lla nts -C

ro ss- Ap pe lle es. S TEP HE N B E R G ST E IN , Be rg stein & U llrich, Chester, N.Y , for Plaintif f-Appellee

Cro ss- Ap pe lla nt.

________________________ H A LL , Circuit J udg e: De fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts -C ro ss- Ap pe lle e s Ci ty of Ne w Y or k ( “ City” ), Ma

rs ha Rothe m, i n d i v i d u a l l y, Z o e A n nC amp b e l l , i n d i v i d u a l l y, an d L o u i s T a z z i , i n d i v i d

u a l l y ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, “Appe llants”) appe al the Oc tober 1, 2007 judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Marr ero, Judge ) followinga jury verdic t for Joseph Kinneary (“K innear y ”) f inding discr imination under the Amer icans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ) (“ ADA” ), Ne w York State H uman Rights L aw (N.Y. Exec. L aw § 296 et seq. ) (“N YSHRL ”) a

nd New Y ork City

Human Rig hts L aw (N.Y. Admin. Code § 8-107) (“NY CH RL ” ). We h old

that be c a us e Ki nn e ary

wa s o ff e re d, but f

a ile d to qu a lif

y fo r, his capta in’s license unde r the a ccommodation to which he claims he wa s entitled ( i.e. , the opportunity

to have his drugtest canc elled base d upon a phy sician’s e valuation), Kinne ary be c ame un qu a lif

ie d to pe rf

or m th e e sse nti a l f

un c tio ns of

his job un de r t

he AD A. In a dd iti on , in implementing the f

eder al re g ulations, the Appellants could not have violated the state a nd local3

laws that we re a lso asserted a s bases for Kinnear y ’s claims of discr imination. According ly , we
reve rse a nd rema nd. I. BACKG ROUND Ki nn e ary , w ho pr e vio us ly se rv e d a s a

slu dg e bo a t c a

pta in w iththe Ne w Y or

k Ci ty Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection (“DE P”), cla ims discrimination under the ADA, NYSHRL , and NYCHRL . He c ontends that: he suffe rs from pa rure sis, also known as “shy bla dd e r s y

nd ro me ;” thi s c on dit ion

qu a lif ie s a s a dis a bil ity ; and

Ap pe lla nts fa ile d to me e t th e ir ob lig a tio n to re a so na

bly a c c omm od a te it. Ki nn e ary a sse rt s th a t he wa s te rm inate d b e c a us e of his pa ru re sis
. Kinnear y preva iled at a jury

trial on ea ch of his cla ims of discrimination. The jury
awa rd e d h im $ 10 0, 00 0 in

ba c k p ay and $1 25 ,0 00 in n on -e c on omi c dama g e s. Ap pe lla nts ’ R ule 50 motion for entry

of judg ment as a matter of law was de nied. The district c ourt, howeve r, g ra nte d App e lla

nts ’ R ule 59 mot ion

fo r a ne w tri a l on

the iss ue of

no n- e c on omi c dama g e s unle ss Kinnear y acc epted a

remittur of the a

war d, reduc ing it to $25,000, which he did. The cour t denied Kinne ary ’s motion for equitable r elief, but it did awa rd him attorney s’ fe es and c osts as well as pre -judg ment interest on bac k pay . Be fore our cour t, Appellants cha lleng e the district
c ourt ru lin g de nyingthe ir

Rul e 50 mot ion

fo r j ud g me nt a s a

matte r o f l aw. Ki nn e ary c ro ssappea ls, contendingthat the cour t should have g rante d his moti on for e quitable re lief. The fa cts that are critica l to this case relate to Kinnear y ’s employ

ment with and te rm inatio n f

ro m th e DE P, a

nd the ra nd om d ru g te sts that he wa s r e qu ir e d to take in o rd e r t o
ma int a in h is C a

pta in’ s li c e ns e . K inn e ary sta rt e d w or kin g fo r t he DE P a s a

pr ov isi on a l f

ull -t ime4

em p l o y ee i n1 9 8 8
. He b ec am e aci v i l s erv i ce em p l o y ee i n1 9 9 2 , wh en h e w as ap p o i n t eds l u d ge boat ca ptain. I t is un dis pute d th a t, b e c a us e of his po sit ion

a s a c a pta in, un de r f

e de ra l r e g ulatio ns , Ki nn e ary wa s su bje c t to ra nd om d ru g te sti ng . K inn e ary

ha d h is f ir st r and om d

ru g te st i n late 1992. At that time, he discover ed that he c ould not urinate on command — e ven af ter stay ing at the site from 9:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. and drinkingwater . Kinnear y was dire cted to re turn to the lab the ne xt mor

nin g but, whe n h e did

so , h e c ou ld n ot p ro vid e a ur ine sampl e a ft e r a

pp ro ximate ly two and a ha lf hours. Kinnea ry was infor med that there was no other test option and, after

trying to void for an a dditional two and a half hours, Kinnea

ry eventua lly

passed ur ine. Kinnear y had no similar troubles with drugtests betwee n 1992 and 1996. In 1996, K i n n e ar y w a s a g a i ng i v e na

r an d o mdr

u g t e s t . H e w a s a

b l e t o p a s s ur i n e a f

t e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y a half-hour but was told that he had not provide d a suff icient quantity

and that he ne eded to f

ill the cup immediately . Kinnear y could not do so. He topped the cup off with tap water

and re turned it. The next y ear , Kinnear y was a g ain unable to pr ovide a ur ine sample whe n tested, so he f illed the cup with tap water. In contra st, however , at a 1998 test duringwhich Kinnea ry was infor med that there was a

three hour limit t o produce a urine sample, he w as able to void within t he require d time period. In D e c e mbe r 2 00 1, Ki nn e ary wa s su bje c t to ano the r r and om d ru g te st. He fo un d th a t, de sp ite “ dr ink ingwate r l ike c ra zy ,” he c ou ld n ot p ro vid e a sampl e wi thi n th e thr e e - h our t ime limit . He then w as transpor ted to a medica l clinic. Acc ording to Kinnear y , as he a pproac hed the clinic, he f

elt an urg ent nee d to urinate. Kinne ary was not allowe d to give a urine sample at the clinic, althoug h he off

ere d to do so.5

I mmediately

there afte r, Kinnea

ry spoke with Peter B ruca s, executive vice pr esident at NE DPC , w hic h d oe s d

ru g te sti ngfo r t

he City . K inn e ary

tol d B ru c a s th a t he “ ha d tr ou ble wi th these tests all throug h the y ear s” and a sked if he c ould take a blood test. B ruca s told Kinneary that he had to g et a doc tor’s note, provide d Kinnear y with instructions to be give n to his doctor (e nti tle d “ I

NF ORMA TI ONAN D I

NST RU CTI ON S TO EX AM I NI NGPHY SI CI AN ” ), and

tol d Ki nn e ary to c a ll h im whe n h e ha d th e no te . T he ins tr uc tio ns state d th a t: 1 ) K inn e ary ha d to obtain an eva luation from a phy sician within five wor king da y s, 2) the phy sician had to make a deter mination of whether

or not a medic al condition had, or w ith a high pr obability could have , prec luded Kinnea

ry from providinga suff

icient amount of urine for the te st, and 3) the phy sician had to provide a

written statement of

rec ommendations and a ba sis for re view by the City ’s Medica l Review Off

icer (“MRO” ). The ne x t day , Kinnear

y ’s doctor wrote a

note say ing, “ This man has ‘Shy

Bla dder Sy n dr o me ’ —

th is is a c h r o n ic c o n d it io nth a t c anb e h e lp e d b y u s in g an[a lp h a ] b lo c k e r

( f lo max) which I have g iven him. He is not a substance abuser .” Kinnea ry rea d the note to B ruca s. Br ucas indicated that the note would not be a cce pted, but he set up a n appointment for Kinne ary wi th t he MRO . K inn e ary

br ou g ht t he no te to t

he MRO the ne xt day . T he fo llo wi ngda y , at a meetingwith the Offic e of D isciplinary Counsel, Kinnear

y was ser ved with misconduct cha

rg es fo r r e fu sin g to t ake a

dr ugte st. At this point , Kinnear

y took a number of

proac tive steps. He pa ssed a blood test and a hair test. Kinnea

ry twice wr ote a City

equal e mploy

ment opportunity

office r about the situation, but he ne ve r r e c e ive d a

re sp on se to h is i nq

uir ie s.6

In Jan ua ry of 20 02 , N ED PC in fo rm e d th e Coa st Gua rd that K inn e ary

wa s “ un a ble to provide a urine sample dur ing a

three -hour time per iod as per 49 CF R Part 40.193(b)(4) for a fe de ra lly mand a te d r and om d

ru g te st o n D e c e mbe r 2 7, 20 01 .” I t a lso tol d th e Coa st Gua rd that: Mr. Kinnear

y was g iven a letter

allowing him five day s to produce [an] independent medical opinion as to his inability . . . . On J anuar

y 3, 2002, Mr. Kinnea

ry broug ht a medica l note (see attache d) t o the S anitation clinic. This note was then se nt to Dr. Ho ro wi tz, the MRO fo r DE P. He re vie we d th e no te and fo un d n o me dic a l r e a so n to explain the inabilit y

to void. Th e Coa st Gua

rd the n f ile d a c omp la int

a g a ins t K inn e ary

e sse nti a lly

a lle g ingthat he re fu se d to
su bmi t to the De c e mbe r 2 00 1 d ru g te st. In th e me anti me , K inn e ary wa s una ble to p ro vid e a

ur ine sampl e a t ano the r d ru g te st administered by

NEDPC, but NEDPC then administ ere d a saliva te st, which came bac k neg ative. On his own ac cord, K innear y also took another ha ir test, which he pa ssed. Soon therea fter, the City allowed Kinne ary

to perfor m “land-ba sed duties.” Kinne ary would not admit, however , that he had r efuse d to take the De cembe r 2001 drugtest, and the City ’s Disciplinary Counsel served him with a set of cha

rg es that stated that “ [s] ince Ma rch 25, 2002, your inability to perfor m the duties of y our title of ‘Captain’ have r ender ed you incompetent.” In July 20 02 , a ne ur op syc hiatr ist

and a ur olo g ist bo th s ub mitte d me dic a l no te s to the City
re latin g to K inn e ary

havin g sh y -b la dd e r s y

nd ro me . T hat sa

me month, Ki nn e ary

un su c c e ssf

ull y attempted a N EDPC urine test for thre e hours, but he the n passed a saliva test. In August of that y e ar, Ki nn e ary

re tur ne d to c a pta in’ s d uti e s. The Coast Gua

rd proc eedingmoved forw ard, a nd an administrative law

judge ruled that Kinnear y had re fused to take a drugtest. The Coast Guar d order ed a 12- month suspension of Kinnear y ’s license , followed by

a 12-month probationary period. Ac cordingto Kinnear y , the7

City ’s Di sc ipl ina

ry Couns e l to ld h im that he c ou ld r e tur n to wo rk a t th e c on c lus ion

of his suspension if he ac knowledg ed re fusing to take a r andom drugtest. Kinnear y ref used to do so. He wa s fired on June 2, 2003. Kinnear y appea led the Coast Guar d ruling and, pendingresolution of that appe al, he
rec eived a

temporar y license. H e wa s then re- hired by the City . The tempora

ry license w as
sc he du le d to e xpir e , a

nd Ki nn e a ry a sk e d th e City ’s Ma

ri ne Sup e ri nte nd e nt t o h e lp h im w ithhis license r enew al. The te mporary license subse quently

expired (a f

act whic h the Marine Superintendent kne w) a

nd for a period of time Kinne ary

capta ined a boat without a license. Ki nn e ary ’s a

pp e a l of the Coa st Gua

rd ’s ru lin g wa s d e nie d a s unti me ly . Atw e lve month suspension, conseque ntly , went into eff ect. The City

terminated K innear

y for a final time on Marc h 4 , 2 00 4. A t e rm ina tio n le tte r s e nt f

ro m th e As sis tant C omm iss ion e r o f t he DE P to Kinnear y explained that, “I

have be en made awa

re of the suspension of your L icense issued by the United State[s] Coast Guard, which is a re quirement of your title . . . Be cause y ou do not possess the re quired lice nse for y our position as Captain, y ou are here by terminated f

rom y our position of Captain with the Ag ency , eff ective Ma rch 4, 2004.” Appellants ar g ue, inte r a lia , that the district court e rre d in denying the ir motion for judgme nt as a matter

of law be cause Kinnear

y failed to de monstrate that he is disabled w ithin the
me anin g of

the AD A a

nd to s ho w that he wa s o the rw ise qu a lif ie d to pe rf

or m th e dutie s o f s hip
c a pta in. Th e y

a lso c on te nd

that ju dg me nt a s a

matte r o f l aw s ho uld

have be e n g ra

nte d b e c a us e Kinnear y did not show that he was ter minated base d upon his alleg ed disability . Indeed, the y state that Kinnea

ry was ter minated bec ause he lacke d a ca ptain’s license
.8

Kinnear y , on the other ha

nd, contends that urinating is a “ major life a ctivity ” under the ADA a nd that the jury

proper ly found that he w as substantially limit ed in this major life ac tivity
. He a rgues that he w as otherw ise qualified to per form the e ssential functions of his job with a
rea sonable a ccommodation. He asser ts that it was beca

use of the A

ppellants’ fa ilure to provide him wi th a re a so na ble a c c omm od a tio n th a t he los t hi s li c e ns e — a nd that App e lla

nts ’ f a ilure to provide him with a re asonable acc ommodation “cannot r ender [hi m] unqualified to work f or the City .” Ki nn e ary

fu rt he r c on te nd s th a t th e c ourt sh ou ld h ave g ra

nte d h is m oti on

fo r e qu ita

ble relief
. II. DI SCU SSIO N We r e vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Ap pe lla nts ’ R ule 50 mot ion

fo r j ud g me nt a s a matter of la

w de novo
. Brady v. W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 5 3 1 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 3 ( 2 d

Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. We have e xpla ine d th a t: Such a motion may

only b e gra n t ed if there exists s uch a c omplete abse nce of evidenc e supportingthe ver dict that the jury ’s finding s could only have be en the re su lt o f s he e r s ur

mis e and c on

je c tur e , or the e vid e nc e in fa vo r of the mov ant i s so overwhelming that rea sonable and fair minded [persons] could not arr ive at a ve rdict a g a ins t [it]. I n revi ewi ngsu c h a mot ion , th is C ourt

mus t g ive de fe re nc e to a ll cr ed i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o n s an d re as o n ab l e in fe re n ce s o f th e j ury , an d m ay n o twe i gh the cr edibility

of witnesses or

otherwise c onsider the we ight of the evidenc e. Id. (interna l citations and quotation marks omitted). The AD A prohibits discrimination ag ainst a “qua lified individual on the basis of disability ” in the “te rms, conditions, and privileg es of e mploy ment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) . A plaintiff must prove that: “( 1) the de fenda nt is covere d by

the ADA; ( 2) plaintiff suff ers f rom or is reg arde d as suffe ringfrom a disa bility within the meaningof the AD A; (3) plaintiff w as qu a lif ie d to pe rf

or m th e e sse nti a l f

un c tio ns of

the job , w ithor

wi tho ut r e a so na

ble9

a c c omm od a tio n; a

nd (4 ) p la int if

f s uf fe re d a n a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio n b e c a

us e of his dis a bil ity or per ceive d disability .” Cap ob ian c o v . Ci ty of N e w York, 422 F.3d 47, 56 ( 2d. Cir. 2005). For purposes of this appe al, we a ssume arguendo that Kinnear y is disabled under the ADA a nd examine whether

Kinnear y was qua lified to perf

orm the esse ntial functions of his job, with or wi tho ut t he a c c omm od a tio n to wh ic h h e c la ims e nti tle me nt. This Court has said that, “[t] he ter m ‘essential func tions,’ which is not defined in the statutes themselves, is g ener ally define d in ADA re g ulations promulgated by the Equal Employ ment Opportunity

Commi ssion (‘EEOC’) to mean the ‘ fundame ntal’ duties to be perf ormed in the position in question, but not functions that ar e mer ely ‘marg inal.’” Sto nev . Ci ty of Mount Vernon , 118 F.3d 92, 97 ( 2d Cir. 1997) (citing29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)( 1)). An e ssential function of Kinne ary ’s job as a sludg e boat c aptain wa s, by definition, actingas a c aptain, which he could only

do if he he ld the proper

license. Kinnear y argues that he w ould not have lost his captain’s lice nse if the Appe llants had offe red him a r easona

ble ac commodation. He c ontends that he should have rec eived the op po rt un ity to h ave his te st c anc e lle d b a se d u po n a phy sic ian’ s e va luatio n. Ac c or din g to K i n n e ar y: The regulations g overningdrugtesting pr ovide for a n acc ommodation for employ ees wi th S hy -B la dder S y

nd ro me . U nd e r 4 9 C. F .R. § 4 0. 19 3( c ), the e mpl oy e e “ mus t obtain, within five day s, an evaluation from a licensed phy sician, acce ptable to t he MRO , w ho ha s e xpe rt ise in t he me dic a l is su e s ra is ed by the e mpl oy e e ’s fa ilure to provide a sufficie nt specimen.” The re fer ral phy sician may

advise the MRO that “ A medical c ondition has, or with a hig h deg ree of proba bility could have , prec luded the employ ee f

rom providing a suff

icient amount of urine .” 49 C.F.R. § 40.193(d) (1). I t is true that “[t] erminatinga disabled e mploy ee . . . who can pe rfor m the essential functions of the job but ca nnot return to wor

k beca use the e mploy er ha s denied his re quest for10

rea sonable a ccommodation, is disability discrimination under the A DA.” Pa rk e r v . Co lum bia Pi c tur es I nd us . , 2 04 F .3 d 3 26 , 3 38 (2 d. Cir . 2 00 0) . T he re c or d, ho we ve r, re fl e c ts t hat th e City provided Kinne ary

with the acc ommodation he soug ht. As Appellants’ c ounsel argued to the district court, “w ithin the feder al re g ulations is an acc ommodation that the plaintiff could have taken a dvantag e of a

nd he fa iled to do it.” Cf. T sombanidis v. W

. Have n Fire Dep’ t , 352 F.3d 565, 579 (2d Cir. 2003) (holdingthat the ac commodation plaintiffs ultimately soug ht was provided). Af te r K inn e ary

c ou ld n ot p ro du c e a

ur ine sampl e a t th e De c e mbe r 2 00 1 te st, the City g ave him the instructions to his examini ng phy sician that stated that Kinne ary had to obtain an evaluation within five working day s and that the re fer ral phy sician had to make one of two de te rm inatio ns , n ame ly , th a t e ith e r “ (1 ) [a ] me dic a l c on dit ion ha s o r w itha

high p ro ba

bil ity could have , prec luded [Kinneary ] from providing a sufficie nt amount of urine ( 45) ml.” or “ (2) [ t ] h er e i s n o tan ad equ at e b as i s fo r d et erm i n i n g th at a m ed i ca l co n d i t i o nh as , o r w i tha h i gh probability

could have , prec luded [Kinneary ] from providing a sufficie nt amount of urine.” The instructions further stated that “a s the ref err al phy sician you must provide a wr itten statement of y our re commendations and ba sis for re view by the MRO.” The instructions are c onsistent, but not co-e x tensive, with the eva luation require ments set by the applica

ble re g ulation. See49 C.F.R. § 40.193. The note that Kinnear

y ’s phy sician provided did not constitute a ba sis for his test to be
ca n ce l l edb ec au s e i td i d

n o ts ay th atKi n n ea ry

h ada m ed i ca l co n d i t i o nth at d i d , o r w i tha h i gh probability

could have , prec luded Kinnea ry from providinga suff

icient amount of urine for the test. I nstead, the note simply stated the name of the c ondition, noted it was chronic a nd could beTh e ne ur op syc hiatr ist ’s and ur olo g ist ’s no te s th a t w e re su bmi tte d to the City

in Jul y 2 20 02 do no t a lte r o ur

ana ly sis of

wh e the r K inn e ary

ob ta ine d a

n a de qu ate state me nt f

ro m a ref err al phy sician. Reg ardle ss of their substance , these notes c ould not form the basis for the canc ellation of Kinnea

ry ’s Dec ember

2001 test under the a

pplicable r egulation beca use they wer e g iven to the City

far too late — ar ound a half -y ear afte r the re g ulatory

time limi t had expired. 11 he lpe d b y an a lph a blo c ke r t hat K inn e ary

ha d b e e n g ive n, and

ind ic a te d th a t K inn e ary

wa s n ot a substance a

buser. 2 The U.S. Coast Guar d, the ag ency with authority

over K innear

y ’s licensing , ag ree d that the pr of fe re d n ote did

no t me e t th e re qu ir e me nts fo r h is t e st t o b e c anc e lle d und e r t he a pp lic a ble
re g ulatio ns . T he a dmi nis tr a tiv e law j ud g e de te rm ine d th a t th e no te did no t g ive “ an a de qu a te b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g th a ta

m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o np r e c l u d e d o r w i tha h i g hd e g r e e o f

p r o b a b i l i ty, could have prec luded Mr. Kinnea ry from providinga suff

icient amount of urine at the collection.” T he judg e also noted that “[w] hen [the Medical Revie w Off icer ] contacted [Kinneary ’s phy sician] to obtain documentation for this diag nosis [ of shy bladder sy ndrome], no supporting data was a

vailable.” Thus, it was the Coast Guar d that definitively decide d that the information provide d by Kinnear y ’s phy sician wa s insufficient under the applica

ble re g ulations to allow his drug te st to be
c anc e lle d. Th e Coa st Gua rd thu s r e vo ke d K inn e ary ’s lic e ns e and that r e vo c a tio n r e su lte d in Kinnear y ’s termination by

the City . That the City

terminated K innear

y beca use he w as not pr op e rl y lic e ns e d a s a

c a pta in i s b or

ne out by the se qu e nc e of

e ve nts . Wh e n K inn e ary ’s lic e ns e was fir st suspended, the City terminated his employ

ment, but when he r ece ived a tempor ary license ( pendinghis appea l of the Coast Guar d’s dec ision) the City re- hired him within day s. Only afte r the Coast Gua

rd’s a dminist rative pr ocee dings ha d conclude d, resulting in a twelvemonth suspension of his li cense , was Kinne ary then terminate d for a

second ( and fina l) time.Be cause Kinnear y fails to make out this element of his c laim, we nee d not and do not 3 re so lve he re wh e the r “ sh y bla dd e r s y

nd ro me ” c an b e a

dis a bil ity under the ADA. We did not re a c h th is i ssu e inB u c k

l e yv . C o n s o l

. E di s o n C o . o f N

. Y. , beca use the plaintiff in that c ase ha d conce ded that his bladder condition was not a disability under the ADA. 155 F .3d 150, 152 (2d. Cir. 1998). We note that a U.S. District Court has said that, on the r ecor d befor e it, there was no evidenc e that shy

bladder sy ndrome limited a plaintiff’s “ ability to car e for

himself, perf

orm manual tasks, or e ng ag e in other ma jor life ac tiviti es” a

nd that the plaintiff bef

ore it, in opposing summary judgme nt, did not contend that the condition was a n ADA disability
. Balistri eri v. Ex pr ess D ru

g S c re e ning, LLC , No. 04-C-0989, 2008 WL906236, at *5 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 31, 2008). 12 Giving de fer ence to all rea sonable infe renc es the jury could dra w, see Brady , 531 F.3d at 133, the evidenc e unequivoc ally demonstrates that the City g ave K innear

y the ac commodation he soug ht (the opportunity

to have his drugtest canc elled base d upon a phy sician’s e valuation pursuant to 49 CFR § 40.193), but that Kinnea ry failed to c omply

with the regulatory require ments that would have a llowed him succe ssfully to canc el his test and save his license. B e c a us e Ki nn e ary

fa ile d to re ta in h is c a

pta in’ s li c e ns e de sp ite re c e ivi ngthe a c c omm od a tio n to which he c laims he was e ntitled, he was not otherw ise qualified to per form the e ssential functions of his job and ca nnot make out a suc cessf

ul claim under the ADA. 3 Ki nn e ary c on c e de s th a t th e same e le me nts that mu st b e pr ov e n to e sta bli shan A DAc la im
mus t be a lso de mon str a te d to pr ov e c la ims un de r N YSH RL and NY CH RL . T his Court

ha s h e ld that § 292(21) of

the NYSHRLis parallel to the “ otherwise qua lified” re quirement of the ADA and we have note d that “[w]e have not had oc casion to dec ide whethe r the a nalog ous provision of the NY CHRLis also para llel, but we see no rea son to think t hat the NYCHRL and the AD A differ in this requirement.” Shannon v. New Y ork City Transit

Auth. , 332 F.3d 95, 103- 04 (2d Cir . 2 00 3) . In a

ny c a se , w e ho ld t

hat K inn e ary ’s c la ims un de r t he NY SHRLand

NY CH RL

mus t fail, bec ause A

ppellants ca

nnot have violated state or loca l discrimination laws by implementing13

fede ral re g ulations that determine, he re, whether Kinnear y is eligible to ser

ve as a capta in. See id. at 104-05. T h e d i s tr i c tc o urte r

r e d i nd e n yi n g Ap p e l l an t s ’ m o t i o nf o r j u d g m e n ta s a

m a t t e r o f l aw . In
a dd iti on , b e c a

us e we ho ld t

ha t th e re wa s n o v iol a tio n o f t he AD A o r t

he oth e r a sse rt e d s tatut e s, the de nia l of

Ki nn e ary ’s mot ion

fo r e qu ita

ble re lie f i s mo ot. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e REV ERS E the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt . T he c a se is
re mand e d to the dis tr ic t c ou rt wi th d ir e c tio ns to e nte r j ud g me nt f or the Ap pe lla

nts .