Source: https://casetext.com/case/heilweil-v-mount-sinai-hosp
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 17:01:55
Document Index: 35155743

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 701', '§ 2000', 'art, 924', '§ 794', '§ 102', '§ 706', '§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 504', '§ 84', '§ 41', '§ 84', '§ 41', '§ 706', '§ 84', '§ 41', '§ 84', '§ 41', '§ 10', '§ 11', '§ 21', '§ 10', '§ 2', '§ 2']

Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp, 32 F.3d 718 | Casetext
Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp
Rivera, 157 F.3d at 104 (quoting DiPompo v. West Point Military Academy, 708 F.Supp. 540, 546 (S.D.N.Y.…
D'Amico v. the City of New York
The Court of Appeals reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Iacobelli Constr.,…
Full title:DONNA HEILWEIL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL,…
32 F.3d 718 (2d Cir. 1994)
holding that employer does not violate the Rehabilitation Act when it has no notice of employee's condition
Denny Chin, New York City (Anne L. Clark, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias Engelhard, P.C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant Donna Heilweil.
Aaron J. Schindel, New York City (Seth Michael Popper, Proskauer Rose Goetz Mendelsohn, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Mount Sinai Hosp.
Plaintiff, Donna Heilweil, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Owen, J.) entered August 5, 1993, granting defendant Mount Sinai Hospital's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's complaint that alleged she was demoted and discharged in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796 (Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (Title VII), and common law claims alleging an unsafe work environment and breach of contract.
The district court found that in June 1989 — the relevant time — Heilweil was not a handicapped person within the meaning of the Act because her respiratory problems were exacerbated only when she worked in the blood bank and thus her medical condition did not substantially limit one or more of her life activities. The trial court based its conclusion on Heilweil's statement that she felt "fine now that I haven't been in the blood bank for several months" and that she had been exercising regularly. Because Judge Owen ruled that plaintiff was not a handicapped person, he did not reach or discuss the other factors needed to be shown to make out a prima facie case under the Act.
Since this is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the district court and determine de novo whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Taggart v. Time Inc., 924 F.2d 43, 45-46 (2d Cir. 1991). Only by reference to the substantive law can it be determined whether a disputed fact is material to the resolution of the dispute. See Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1114 (2d Cir. 1988). All inferences drawn from the facts must be construed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here plaintiff Heilweil. See Taggart, 924 F.2d at 46. It is only when no rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party, that it can be said that there is no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment properly may be granted to the moving party. See Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994).
We turn to the Rehabilitation Act, which provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with handicaps . . . shall, solely by reason of her . . . handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (1988), subsequently amended by Pub.L. No. 102-569, § 102(p)(32) (1992).
The plaintiff in a Rehabilitation Act suit bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case under the Act. The burden then shifts to the employer. If the employer asserts a neutral reason, unrelated to plaintiff's handicap, for its employment decision, then its burden is to "articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discharging the employee." See Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1224-25. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer's stated reason is really a pretext for discrimination. Id. But if the employer relies on plaintiff's handicap as the reason for the adverse employment decision, then its burden is "to rebut the inference that the handicap was improperly taken into account by going forward with evidence that the handicap is relevant to qualifications for the position." Doe v. New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761, 776 (2d Cir. 1981). The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is qualified despite her handicap. See id. at 776-77; see also Teahan v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 951 F.2d 511, 514-15 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 54, 121 L.Ed.2d 24 (1992) (describing differences in employers' burdens depending upon the asserted reason for the discharge).
A plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of discrimination under the Act by showing: 1) she is a handicapped person under the Act; 2) she is otherwise qualified to perform her job; 3) she was discharged because of her handicap; and 4) the employer is a recipient of Federal financial assistance. See Doe, 666 F.2d at 774-75; see also Bates v. Long Island R.R., 997 F.2d 1028, 1035 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 550, 126 L.Ed.2d 452 (1993). Defendant contends, and the district court found, that Heilweil did not prove she is a handicapped person under the Act.
Whether one is a handicapped person under the Act necessitates a two-pronged inquiry. It must first be determined whether a plaintiff has a physical or mental impairment. If so, it must then be decided whether such impairment substantially limits one or more of that person's major life activities. The term "individual with handicaps" is defined in the Act as "any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment." 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B) (1988), subsequently amended by Pub.L. No. 102-569, § 102(f)(2) (1992) and Pub L. No. 103-73, § 103(2)(B) (1993).
1. Physical Impairment. The regulations promulgated under the Act shed further light on the meaning of physical impairment and major life activity. In School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 279, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 11, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987), the Supreme Court said "[i]n determining whether a particular individual is handicapped as defined by the Act, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services are of significant assistance ... [and] provide `an important source of guidance on the meaning of § 504 [of the Act].'" The regulations define physical or mental impairment as "any physiological disorder or condition ... affecting [the] ... respiratory [system]." 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(i)(A) (1989); see also 28 C.F.R. § 41.31(b)(1)(i) (1989) (same). Major life activities include "functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii) (1989); see also 28 C.F.R. § 41.31(b)(2) (1989) (same). Because the Act is a remedial statute, it and the regulations promulgated under it are to be construed broadly. See Gilbert v. Frank, 949 F.2d 637, 641 (2d Cir. 1991).
Heilweil insists she meets both prongs of the inquiry. She certainly satisfies the first prong. Plaintiff has suffered from asthma since 1987, before she began working at Mount Sinai. Asthma is a physiological disorder or condition that affects the respiratory system. Under the statute and applicable regulations, Heilweil suffers from a physical impairment. See 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(i)(A); 28 C.F.R. § 41.31(b)(1)(i).
2. Major Life Activity. It is on the second prong — whether plaintiff's physical condition affected a major life activity at the time the hospital discharged her — where her case founders. Under the regulations the ability to breathe and work are major life activities. See 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 41.31(b)(2). We consider first whether plaintiff's ability to breathe was significantly affected by her asthmatic condition.
Heilweil contends her asthma significantly affected her day-to-day functioning. Yet in a June 12, 1989 conversation with Director of Human Resources Kruger, she stated that because she had not been in the blood bank for several months she felt "fine, now." Additionally, in plaintiff's deposition of July 12, 1990 — almost a year after her discharge — she testified that her current respiratory condition did not limit her ability to exercise and that she had been swimming because she had a limited amount of time each day to exercise and swimming was a good overall workout. See Byrne v. Board of Educ., 979 F.2d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 1992) (in a respiratory impairment case, evidence person participated in recreational activities undermines finding that person is handicapped under Act). Thus, it appears that at the time Mount Sinai terminated plaintiff and throughout the following year Heilweil's ability to breathe restricted her only in a limited way, and did not bar her from exercising.
We pass now to whether plaintiff's physical impairment substantially limited her ability to work. In this analysis the kinds of jobs from which the impaired individual is disqualified must be carefully considered. An impairment that disqualifies a person from only a narrow range of jobs is not considered a substantially limiting one. See Jasany v. United States Postal Serv., 755 F.2d 1244, 1249, n. 3 (6th Cir. 1985).
It is quite apparent that the peculiar fumes within the blood bank exacerbated plaintiff's asthma, not the general environment of the hospital. Heilweil declares that it is not just the blood bank that made her asthmatic condition worse, but rather "her disability made it impossible to work in any poorly-ventilated place — including Mount Sinai's blood bank." No medical proof substantiates this assertion. And, to defeat a motion for summary judgment a plaintiff cannot rely on "conjecture or surmise," Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 152, 116 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991), and "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Mount Sinai proved through plaintiff's own statements and those of her doctor that it was the conditions in the blood bank that worsened her asthmatic symptoms, leaving no genuine issue of material fact as to what caused her respiratory problems at her place of employment.
In Daley v. Koch, 892 F.2d 212, 215 (2d Cir. 1989), we stated the obvious fact that a person found unsuitable for a particular position has not thereby demonstrated an impairment substantially limiting such person's major life activity of working. In fact, every circuit to visit this issue has so ruled. See Gupton v. Virginia, 14 F.3d 203, 205 (4th Cir. 1994) (for plaintiff to show allergy to tobacco smoke substantially limited ability to work, she had to show allergy foreclosed employment opportunities in her field), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 59, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1994); Cook v. Rhode Island, 10 F.3d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 1993) (jury could find employer regarded plaintiff's condition as substantially limiting her ability to work because her condition foreclosed a wide range of employment options within the health care field); Byrne, 979 F.2d at 565 (a person's inability to perform a specific job for a specific employer does not substantially limit a person's ability to work); Welsh v. City of Tulsa, 977 F.2d 1415, 1419 (10th Cir. 1992) ("[A]n impairment that an employer perceives as limiting an individual's ability to perform only one job is not a handicap under the Act."); Maulding v. Sullivan, 961 F.2d 694, 698 (8th Cir. 1992) (plaintiff was not handicapped under the Act because sensitivity to chemicals prevented her from working only in lab and did not substantially limit employment opportunities as a whole), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 653 (1993); Forrisi v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 931, 935 (4th Cir. 1986) (substantial limitation on person's ability to work occurs when impairment forecloses generally "the type of employment involved").
Here plaintiff was medically restricted from working in only one place in the hospital — the blood bank. With respect to plaintiff's other employment opportunities, she stated at her deposition that Seligman had told her he would help her find another position, whether at Mount Sinai or somewhere else. From this, it appears plaintiff was willing — were such available — to accept another position at Mount Sinai. Further, when Seligman attempted to contact Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to see if a position was available for her there, Heilweil discouraged him because she thought her chances for employment there would be better if she made the initial contact. Plaintiff did contact Memorial Sloan-Kettering, apparently thinking this would be a viable employment alternative. Nothing suggests plaintiff's education and previous job experiences would hinder her ability to find a suitable position in the general field of administration. Heilweil is a college graduate with a master's degree in business administration, who since taking her degree has always been gainfully employed.
Heilweil was not therefore a handicapped person under the Act when she was discharged. Because her asthmatic condition did not substantially limit a major life activity — either her ability to breathe or work — defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
We now turn to evidence of plaintiff's medical condition two years after she left Mount Sinai's employ. Although the proof was offered and rejected by the district court, the issue of what knowledge an employer under the Rehabilitation Act must have at the time it makes its decision was neither briefed by the parties or decided by Judge Owen. On appeal the issue has been fully briefed. We could remand to the district court for it to decide this issue in the first instance, but we see no reason to do so because there are no facts in dispute — either as to Heilweil's condition before or subsequent to her discharge when the bronchiectasis was diagnosed — and the issue to be decided is solely one of law, which we may decide ourselves.
Plaintiff relies first on Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985). There the Ninth Circuit held it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to consider subsequent medical evidence an employer had obtained after discharging plaintiffs. Although the court stated the evidence might be considered for the purpose of refuting plaintiff's claim that she was qualified for the position, it also concluded that "[t]he asserted basis for the employer's decision not to hire the plaintiff is limited to the evidence relied on by the employer at the time the decision was made." As a corollary, an employer is only responsible for employment decisions based on information available to it when it decides. See Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1181 (6th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff not dismissed solely by reason of handicap because decisionmaker had no knowledge of it); cf. Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d 869, 877 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1989) ("As long as the employer is on notice that an employee suffers from a serious medical condition, it may be liable under the [Washington] handicap discrimination law."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 814, 111 S.Ct. 53, 112 L.Ed.2d 28 (1990); O'Keefe v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 714 F. Supp. 622, 627 (N.D.N.Y. 1989) (employer did not violate New York law when it discharged plaintiff prior to becoming aware of his alcohol problem). Of course, here there was no such notice. Plaintiff's further reliance on three cases discussed earlier in her quest to convince us that the district court erred by not considering her subsequent medical evidence gives her no comfort. In all three, no subsequent medical proof was offered to show the plaintiff was handicapped at the time of the relevant employment decision. See Byrne, 979 F.2d at 565; Forrisi, 794 F.2d at 934; Jasany, 755 F.2d at 1250.
In dismissing Heilweil's common law cause of action alleging that Mount Sinai breached its duty to provide a safe place to work, the district court deferred to the expertise of the New York Workers' Compensation Board because it has primary jurisdiction over the matter. Section 10 of the New York Workers' Compensation Law mandates that every employer shall provide compensation to its employees for a disability from an injury "arising out of and in the course of [their] employment." N Y Work. Comp. Law § 10 (McKinney 1992). "The liability of an employer ... shall be exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever. . . ." Id. § 11. "In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation . . ., it shall be presumed in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary ... [t]hat the claim comes within the provision of this chapter. . . ." Id. § 21 (McKinney 1993).
Whether the injury "arises out of and in the course of the employment" is "one of the most important criteria for determining whether an employer is liable for a worker's disability." Id. § 10 Practice Commentary (McKinney 1992). Section 2 of the Law defines injury as encompassing "only accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment and such disease or infection as may naturally and unavoidably result therefrom." Id. § 2(7) (1992). An occupational disease is defined as "a disease resulting from the nature of employment and contracted therein." Id. § 2(15).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by deferring to the Board, especially because what constitutes an occupational disease or an accidental injury under the workers' compensation law is a fine distinction best left to the expertise of the Board. Compare Johannesen v. New York City Dep't of Hous. Preservation Dev., 84 N.Y.2d 129, 133, 137, 615 N.Y.S.2d 336, 638 N.E.2d 981 (1994) (plaintiff suffered an "accidental injury" when she began suffering from bronchial asthma due to exposure to tobacco smoke and dust at work) with Mack v. County of Rockland, 71 N.Y.2d 1008, 1009, 530 N.Y.S.2d 98, 525 N.E.2d 744 (1988) (an aggravation of plaintiff's preexisting eye disorder by exposure to cigarette smoke in a poorly ventilated room was not an "occupational disease" under the statute). Because plaintiff chose not to litigate this issue before the Board, the district court correctly avoided ruling on the merits of her claim, referring it to the Board for its determination. See Liss, 68 N.Y.2d at 21, 505 N.Y.S.2d 831, 496 N.E.2d 851.
holding that "[a]n impairment that disqualifies a person from only a narrow range of jobs is not considered a substantially limiting one"
Summary of this case from Halperin v. Abacus Technology Corporation
holding that plaintiff with work-aggravated asthma was not disabled under the Rehabilitation Act with respect to either breathing or working
Summary of this case from Taylor v. City of Fridley
holding that participation in recreation activities such as exercise tends to undermine a finding of disability based on diminished breathing capacity
Summary of this case from STURGEON v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC.
holding that periodic respiratory difficulties did not significantly affect the major life activity of working
Summary of this case from Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons
finding plaintiff not disabled where her asthma "restricted her only in a limited way"
finding plaintiff not hindered in her ability to work because of her advanced educational degrees
Summary of this case from Mondzelewski v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.
Summary of this case from Nicholas v. Acuity Lighting Group, Inc. (S.D.Ind. 2005)
Summary of this case from Miller v. Heritage Products, Inc. (S.D.Ind. 2004)
finding plaintiff was not disabled when only poor ventilation of particular building aggravated asthma
Summary of this case from Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hospital
finding that plaintiff was only precluded from working in one place in hospital — the blood bank — and was therefore, not substantially limited in her ability to work
Summary of this case from Simms v. City of New York
finding asthma to be a physical impairment under the Rehabilitation Act
Summary of this case from Owen v. Computer Sciences Corp.
finding plaintiff's breathing was not substantially impaired because plaintiff testified she could exercise and swim outside of the work environment that created her breathing trouble
Summary of this case from Horvath v. Savage Mfg. Inc.
concluding that plaintiff failed to establish disability where, inter alia, she offered "[n]o medical proof
concluding that, despite respiratory problems at work, plaintiff's "ability to breathe restricted her only in a limited way, and did not bar her from exercising."
Summary of this case from Mutts v. Southern Connecticut State University
affirming grant of summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff had a master's degree and had been gainfully employed since receiving her degree
affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on ground that her handicap was not within the scope of the Act
Summary of this case from Sedor v. Frank
affirming summary judgment where plaintiff submitted "no medical proof substantiat[ing]" disability
Summary of this case from Cheung v. Donahoe
affirming dismissal of plaintiff's complaint on summary judgment where plaintiff was not disabled, in part because "no medical proof substantiate[d]" plaintiff's claim of disability
Summary of this case from O'Kane v. Lew
affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim because "at the time the adverse employment decision was made [plaintiff] was not a handicapped person under the Act"
Summary of this case from McCowan v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
affirming summary judgment on Rehabilitation Act claim
Summary of this case from Okoro v. Marriott International, Inc.
affirming summary judgment
Summary of this case from King v. England
In Heilweil, the issue that required such proof was the extent to which the conceded impairment of asthma limited the plaintiff in the major life activity of working.