Macolino v. Teledata Commc'ns, Inc.

Full title: SUZANNE MACOLINO, Plaintiff, v. TELEDATA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 24, 2015

CV 13-4799 (LDW) (GRB) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015)

Opinion

CV 13-4799 (LDW) (GRB)

11-24-2015

SUZANNE MACOLINO, Plaintiff, v. TELEDATA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant.

APPEARANCES: FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Peter A. Romero, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465 Farmingdale, New York 11735 SCHUPBACH, WILLIAMS & PAVONE LLP BY: Arthur C. Shupback, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant 1010 Franklin Avenue, Suite 404 Garden City, New York 11530

WEXLER, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

APPEARANCES: FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Peter A. Romero, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465
Farmingdale, New York 11735 SCHUPBACH, WILLIAMS & PAVONE LLP
BY: Arthur C. Shupback, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
1010 Franklin Avenue, Suite 404
Garden City, New York 11530 WEXLER, District Judge:

This is a disability discrimination action in which the Plaintiff, Suzanne Macolino, alleges that her former employer, Defendant Teledata Communications, Inc., terminated her because they perceived her to be disabled, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12203 et seq. and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq. Defendant now moves for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the grounds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact herein. Defendant's motion is denied.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff is not substantially limited in her ability to perform any major life activities, as defined under the ADA. It is similarly undisputed that Plaintiff never requested a "reasonable accommodation" from Defendant, in accordance with the ADA. However, the deposition testimony of both Plaintiff and her supervisor, Angela Tuck - submitted by the parties as evidence in connection with the within motion - demonstrates that there are issues of fact on which reasonable minds could differ as to whether Defendant's termination of Plaintiff's employment was based on a perception that she was disabled, as Plaintiff alleges. Such issues of fact preclude the entry of summary judgment.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Jury selection remains scheduled for June 20, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED:

Dated: Central Islip, New York

November 24, 2015

s/ Leonard D. Wexler

LEONARD D. WEXLER

United States District Judge