Opinion
05 Civ. 0086 (DLC).
August 9, 2006
Khatuna Batlidze Pro se, For Plaintiff.
Daniel J. Moore Harris Beach, PLLC Pittsford, NY, For Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Khatuna Batlidze ("Batlidze") has brought this action pro se claiming that Harris Beach, LLP ("Harris Beach"), a law firm where Batlidze worked as a file clerk, did not accommodate her vision disability and fired her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq. ("ADA"). Harris Beach has moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
The following facts are uncontested or as shown by the plaintiff unless otherwise noted. Batlidze worked from 1997 through August 2003 as a file clerk for Harris Beach or a predecessor firm. In 2000, Batlidze was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of her eyelids. She took a short-term disability leave, received radiation therapy, and returned to work in June 2001. The treatment left her with severe dry eyes.
In February 2003, Batlidze was assigned to the Asbestos litigation team. In May, Batlidze underwent laparoscopic surgery for a condition unrelated to her eyes, and was away from work for four weeks. On June 6, within days of her return to work, Batlidze's opthalmologist informed Harris Beach that Batlidze's eye condition had "gotten considerably worse" since March, and that she had "blurred vision, redness and extreme discomfort which are minimally alleviated by medication." The doctor recommended that Batlidze temporarily be assigned to duties other than filing. The law firm's director of administration wrote to the doctor on June 23, describing Batlidze's duties and observing that it did not appear that she could do them given her disability. The administrator asked whether the impairment would be temporary or permanent. The duties were described as filing, scanning documents and related tasks. The doctor responded on July 2 that Batlidze should be given a computer-linked desk job for three months, and if she were not "spontaneously" better after that time, that he would fit her with a bandage contact lens. Harris Beach asserts that it instructed Batlidze to refrain from filing, but Batlidze denies that Harris Beach accommodated her problems.
In July 2003, Harris Beach decided to outsource the Asbestos litigation team filing work to Bowne Business Solutions ("BBS"). The team consisted of Batlidze and two others. BBS agreed to consider applications for employment by the three employees. Its July 28, 2003 agreement with Harris Beach required it to provide two file clerks to the Asbestos litigation team.
Harris Beach represents that it explained its plans to Batlidze twice in August. In the first meeting it also described its long and short term disability plans. At that meeting Batlidze insisted that she wanted to continue working. In the second meeting, held on August 23 with all three file clerks, Harris Beach has offered evidence that it gave each of them the materials they needed to apply to BBS for employment. During August, Harris Beach contends it also gave Batlidze a proposed separation agreement with seven weeks' pay and six months of health benefits.
Batlidze denies that she was informed about the opportunity to join BBS. She asserts that the firm administrator told her that they were closing the filing department and letting her go because of her eyes.
During the proceedings before the EEOC, Batlidze's attorney admitted that Batlidze eventually found an application for BBS among the papers concerning her separation from Harris Beach, but denied that Harris Beach ever described this opportunity to Batlidze.
On August 31, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed Batlidze's claim, which she had filed with it on May 17, 2004. On January 3, 2005, Batlidze, proceeding pro se, submitted her complaint to this Court's Pro Se Office, asserting that Harris Beach had violated the ADA when it terminated her employment, failed to accommodate her disability, and provided unequal terms and conditions of employment during the period June 3 to August 26, 2003. She identified her disability as "limited vision", explaining that she needs to use a magnifying glass to read anything. In opposition to this motion, Batlidze has submitted a January 11, 2006 medical evaluation that she is legally blind.
Harris Beach has moved for summary judgment. In opposition, Batlidze has offered evidence that she was disabled in 2003, and that Harris Beach perceived her to be disabled. Batlidze also disputes the extent to which Harris Beach accommodated her vision difficulties in July and August 2003, and denies that Harris Beach presented her with the opportunity to apply to BBS in August 2003, an opportunity that it offered to her two colleagues. These factual disputes prevent the entry of summary judgment.
Conclusion
Harris Beach's motion for summary judgment is denied.
SO ORDERED.