In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided against Susan Rosenberg in her disability discrimination case against Nassau Boces. The court's decision, made on August 5, 2026, affects Rosenberg, a special education teacher, who claimed she faced discrimination due to her disability during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling is significant as it addresses the legal standards for reasonable accommodations in the workplace under New York State law.
Rosenberg filed her lawsuit against Nassau Boces and several individuals, including Valeri C. D'Aguanno and Selma Stoddard, alleging that they failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability. She argued that her health condition made her more vulnerable during the pandemic and that she should have been allowed to work remotely. The case, identified by docket number 2024-11266, reached the appellate court after a lower court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing her claims.
The dispute began when Rosenberg, who worked as a special education teacher, requested to teach from home during the 2020-2021 academic year. She claimed that her health condition put her at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The defendants countered that they offered her a reasonable accommodation by allowing her to teach from within the school while adhering to COVID-19 safety protocols, which she declined. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of Nassau County, where the judge ruled in favor of the defendants, leading to Rosenberg's appeal.
The court ruled that the defendants had adequately considered Rosenberg's request for accommodation and had engaged in discussions about her working conditions. The opinion stated, "the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation." The judges involved in the decision included Mark C. Dillon, Deborah A. Dowling, Carl J. Landicino, and James P. McCormack.
Additionally, the court addressed the claim of disability discrimination and constructive discharge. It noted that Rosenberg did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she suffered an adverse employment action as defined under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The opinion clarified that an adverse action could include constructive discharge, which occurs when an employer creates intolerable working conditions that force an employee to resign. However, the court found that the defendants had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions.
The ruling reinforces the importance of employers engaging with employees regarding accommodation requests. It emphasizes that employers can demonstrate they have considered requests for reasonable accommodations and that simply declining a request does not automatically constitute discrimination. This decision is significant for both employers and employees, as it clarifies the standards for reasonable accommodation under the NYSHRL.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how employers handle accommodation requests, particularly in situations involving health concerns like those raised during the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights the need for employers to document their interactions with employees regarding accommodations and to provide clear reasons for any decisions made. This case also serves as a reminder for employees to understand their rights and the legal standards that apply to their requests for accommodations.
While Rosenberg's case has concluded at this level, she may still have the option to appeal to a higher court. Details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may also have implications for future cases involving disability discrimination and reasonable accommodations in New York.