Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealmotiondiscriminationhuman rightsrespondent
human rights

Related Cases

United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516
View Case »
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. E.P.A., 716 F.3d 667, 76 ERC 1609, 405 U.S.App.D.C. 100
View Case »
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 49 Fed.R.Serv.3d 739, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,068, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3344, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4129
View Case »
Danforth v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 3227637
View Case »
In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:26B, 128 N.J. 442, 608 A.2d 288, 35 ERC 1458
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

City of New York, E.P.A. v. Feinberg, 67 A.D.2d 653, 412 N.Y.S.2d 612, 20 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,209

Facts

Respondent Feinberg was employed by the New York City Sanitation Department as a motor vehicle operator and took a promotional examination for the position of 'Laborer' in 1973. The examination required passing physical and medical tests, with specific medical conditions listed as causes for rejection. Feinberg passed the initial physical but was later deemed unqualified due to degenerative osteo-arthritic changes in his back, which were revealed by an x-ray. After failing to appear for a scheduled re-examination, Feinberg filed a complaint with the Human Rights Division alleging age and disability discrimination.

Issue

Whether Feinberg's osteo-arthritic condition was related to his ability to perform the functions of a laborer, and whether the Human Rights Division had the authority to direct the city to appoint him to the promotional position.

The issue then is whether the osteo-arthritic condition is related or unrelated to Feinberg's ability to carry out the functions of a laborer.

Rule

The Human Rights Law defines 'disability' in employment contexts as conditions unrelated to the ability to perform job functions. The appointing authority may consider existing medical conditions that affect an applicant's capacity to perform job duties.

The Human Rights Law ( Executive Law) sec. 292(21) in defining “ disability” is clear that when dealing with employment “. . . the term shall be limited to physical, mental or medical conditions which are unrelated to the ability to engage in the activities involved in the job or occupation which a person claiming protection of this article shall be seeking.”

Analysis

The court determined that Feinberg's arthritic back condition was directly related to his ability to lift and move heavy objects, which were essential functions of the laborer position. The court emphasized that the job's physical demands justified the appointing authority's consideration of Feinberg's medical condition. Furthermore, the Human Rights Division's role did not extend to overriding the city's discretion in employment decisions based on medical qualifications.

It seems reasonable that a qualifying physical examination would take into consideration the effect of an existing degenerative disease and the possibility of its rendering the applicant unable to perform his duties. “The public's interests are sufficiently involved to permit consideration of the element of prognosis within reasonable limitations on the question of fitness.” ( Strauss v. Hannig, 256 App.Div. 662, 665, 11 N.Y.S.2d 102, 106). An arthritic back condition is without dispute an ailment that relates to the applicant's capacity for lifting and moving heavy objects, and, thus, the appointing authority may not be precluded from considering such ailment.

Conclusion

The court annulled the order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board and dismissed Feinberg's complaint of discrimination, allowing for the possibility of a medical re-examination.

Order annulled and complaint dismissed.

Who won?

The city prevailed in the case because the court found that the appointing authority was justified in considering Feinberg's medical condition in relation to the job requirements, and the Human Rights Division overstepped its authority.

You must be