Antonsen v. Ward, 73 N.Y.2d 390 (1989)
An employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on a disability where the determination is premised solely on the fact of an applicant’s inclusion in a class of persons with a particular disability rather than upon an individualized assessment of the specific individual’s present ability to perform the job.
Summary
Gregory Antonsen, a probationary police officer, was dismissed due to Crohn’s disease, despite being in remission. The Police Commissioner argued a reasonable expectation of recurrence justified the dismissal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions reinstating Antonsen. The Court held that the Commissioner’s determination lacked a rational basis, relying on speculative statistical data instead of an individualized assessment of Antonsen’s present ability to perform his duties. The decision emphasized that employment decisions must be based on an individual’s current capabilities, not speculative future incapacities.
Facts
Gregory Antonsen, after passing required tests, was appointed as a probationary police officer in July 1985. While at the Police Academy, he experienced abdominal pains and diarrhea, later diagnosed as Crohn’s disease. Despite this, he graduated in the top 5% of his class and was assigned to the Neighborhood Stabilization Unit. There, he performed well, engaging in foot chases and making felony drug arrests, with his medical condition not interfering with his duties. In July 1986, he was assigned to regular patrol but was hospitalized with leg and side pains. In August 1986, Antonsen underwent successful surgery to remove the diseased portion of his small intestine, returned to full duty in October 1986 and was then placed on limited duty pending medical review. Despite a favorable report from a gastroenterologist, Dr. Eugene Antelis, a staff surgeon, recommended dismissal based on a potential for disease recurrence.
Procedural History
Antonsen challenged his dismissal via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking reinstatement. Supreme Court initially vacated the dismissal and remanded for a new physical examination. Following a negative recommendation based on potential recurrence, Antonsen was again denied reappointment, leading to a second article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court again ordered reinstatement, finding the Commissioner’s determination lacked rational basis. The Appellate Division affirmed, citing a violation of Antonsen’s rights. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Police Commissioner’s dismissal of a probationary police officer with Crohn’s disease in remission, based on a reasonable expectation of future disease recurrence, violates the Human Rights Law prohibiting disability discrimination?
Holding
Yes, because the Commissioner’s decision was based on general statistical probabilities of recurrence rather than an individualized assessment of Antonsen’s current ability to perform the duties of a police officer.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that while a probationary employee can be terminated without a hearing, the termination cannot be based on reasons prohibited by law, such as discrimination based on disability. The Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination based on a disability that does not prevent the employee from performing the job’s activities in a reasonable manner. The court emphasized that the test is an “individualized one,” requiring evidence that the particular disability prevents the individual from performing the specific job duties. Statistical data indicating a potential for recurrence is insufficient; there must be evidence that any recurring symptoms would be so debilitating as to prevent the individual from performing the job. The court cited Matter of State Div. of Human Rights (Granelle), 70 N.Y.2d 100 (1987), stating that employment cannot be denied based on speculation and mere possibilities, especially when based solely on inclusion in a class of persons with a particular disability. The Court found that the Commissioner’s determination lacked such individualized evidence, thus violating the Human Rights Law. As stated in the decision, “Employment may not be denied based on speculation and mere possibilities, especially when such determination is premised solely on the fact of an applicant’s inclusion in a class of persons with a particular disability rather than upon an individualized assessment of the specific individual.” The court did not need to consider whether a reasonable expectation of future unfitness would be a valid basis for disqualification, as that was not established here. The argument regarding potential fiscal consequences was dismissed based on the ruling in State Div. of Human Rights (McDermott) v Xerox Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 213 (1985).