Matter of McAnuff v. New York City Transit Authority, 56 N.Y.2d 141 (1982)
Under New York’s Human Rights Law, an employer cannot discriminate against an employee with a disability if the employee can perform the essential functions of the job in a reasonable manner, even if the employee cannot perform the duties in a perfect manner.
Summary
McAnuff, a railroad clerk, was appointed to a supervisory position with the New York City Transit Authority (Authority) subject to a probationary period. After being hospitalized for a heart condition, he was initially cleared to return to “full duty status,” but later deemed unable to perform the full duties of his supervisory role due to stair climbing restrictions. His probation was terminated, and he was demoted. McAnuff sued, alleging disability discrimination. The Court of Appeals held that the Authority must demonstrate that McAnuff’s condition prevents him from performing the job’s essential functions in a reasonable manner, not perfectly, to justify the termination.
Facts
In 1971, McAnuff became a railroad clerk with the Authority after passing a competitive exam.
In 1975, he passed the exam for assistant station supervisor and was placed on the eligibility list.
On November 10, 1979, he was appointed assistant station supervisor, subject to a one-year probationary period.
In 1980, he was hospitalized multiple times for a heart condition and was absent from work from September 20 to October 20.
On October 20, 1980, the Authority’s cardiac consultant cleared him for “full duty status.”
On October 27, 1980, the same doctor found him “not qualified to do full duty” as a supervisor due to stair climbing limitations, but cleared him to work as a railroad clerk.
On November 6, 1980, his probation was terminated, and he was demoted back to railroad clerk.
Procedural History
In January 1981, McAnuff commenced an Article 78 proceeding, claiming disability discrimination and seeking reinstatement with back pay.
The Authority moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, citing unsatisfactory probationary service and the cardiac consultant’s finding that McAnuff was unfit for full duty.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss without a hearing, finding that the medical finding meant McAnuff could not perform the job reasonably.
The Appellate Division affirmed.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Authority discriminated against McAnuff in violation of the Human Rights Law by terminating his probationary appointment due to his heart condition.
Whether, under the amended Human Rights Law, the Authority must demonstrate that McAnuff is incapable of performing the essential functions of the supervisory position in a reasonable manner, not perfectly, to justify termination.
Holding
Yes, because the Authority may have discriminated against McAnuff based on his disability.
Yes, because the statute bars discrimination against an impaired individual who is reasonably able to do what the position requires. The employer must show the employee’s condition precludes them from performing the job to that extent.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that while a probationary employee can be terminated without a hearing or stated reasons, the termination cannot be for reasons prohibited by law, such as discrimination based on disability.
The Court reviewed the evolution of the Human Rights Law, noting that prior to 1979, a disability was defined as a condition “unrelated to the ability to engage in the activities involved in the job.”
The 1979 amendment broadened the definition to include conditions that “do not prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought.”
The Court stated, “Under the current statute, then, it is not enough for the employer to show that the employee’s physical impairment is somehow related to the duties he must perform in the position sought. Nor is it sufficient to show that the impairment precludes the employee from performing the duties in a perfect manner.”
The court emphasized that “the determinative question under the amended statute is whether the petitioner is incapable of performing the duties required by the supervisory position in a reasonable manner and nothing submitted thus far by either side eliminates this as a factual question.”
The Court concluded that the motion to dismiss should have been denied, and the Authority should be required to answer the petition, addressing the discrimination issue. The court must then determine if a hearing is needed to determine (1) if the termination was due to McAnuff’s physical condition, and (2) if the restrictions imposed by that condition justify a conclusion that he cannot perform the job in a reasonable manner.