Joshua Paige V Garvans Rock And Rye Llc Maggie Maes Llc And Garvan

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff Joshua Paige was employed as executive chef at Garvan's Rock and Rye, LLC and Maggie Mae's, LLC from February 2016 until terminated on August 30, 2022 following a knee injury and workers' compensation leave. He alleges disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and NYSHRL. Defendants moved for summary judgment on September 26, 2025, arguing termination was for legitimate performance reasons. The motion was granted for FMLA claims but denied for ADA/NYSHRL claims, with the court finding sufficient evidence for a jury to determine discrimination and retaliation.

Issues

  • The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to accommodate his disability under the ADA and NYSHRL by terminating his employment instead of allowing additional time to heal from his knee injury, which the court found to be coextensive with the discrimination claims.
  • The court considered whether the defendants' termination of the plaintiff's employment was motivated by disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), as the plaintiff had a knee injury and subsequent workers' compensation leave.
  • The court evaluated if the plaintiff's termination was retaliatory in response to his seeking reasonable accommodation for his knee injury under the ADA and NYSHRL, with the evidence supporting a prima facie case of retaliation.

Holdings

  • The defendants' September 26, 2025 motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the FMLA claims, and is otherwise denied. The court determined that the plaintiff's withdrawal of FMLA claims and lack of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case under those statutes justify granting the motion on this limited basis.
  • The court denies the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims under the ADA and NYSHRL. A reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff's knee injury was a motivating factor in his termination, supported by McCloskey's alleged comment linking workers' compensation leave to firing decisions and the temporal proximity of the injury to termination. The defendants' legitimate performance concerns do not preclude a finding of pretext.

Remedies

The defendants' September 26, 2025 motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the FMLA claims, and is otherwise denied. This ruling allows the plaintiff's ADA and NYSHRL claims to proceed while dismissing the FMLA claims.

Legal Principles

The decision relies on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA and NYSHRL. This framework requires the plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case by showing: (1) the employer is subject to the ADA; (2) the employee is disabled or perceived as disabled; (3) the employee is qualified for the job; and (4) an adverse employment action was taken because of the disability. For retaliation claims, the plaintiff must show protected activity, knowledge of that activity, adverse action, and a causal connection. Once the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, after which the plaintiff must demonstrate the reason is pretextual. The court found the plaintiff satisfied the prima facie requirements for disability discrimination and retaliation, and the defendants' legitimate reasons were insufficient to dismiss the claims.

Precedent Name

  • Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar
  • Bentley v. AutoZoners, LLC
  • Hamilton v. Westchester Cnty.
  • El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
  • Choi v. Tower Rsch. Cap. LLC
  • Sharikov v. Philips Med. Sys. MR, Inc.

Cited Statute

  • New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)
  • Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Judge Name

Denise Cote

Passage Text

  • The deciding issue, therefore, is whether Paige has provided evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that his injury was at least a motivating factor in the decision to fire him. He has.
  • Paige has testified that McCloskey said, 'maybe I'll fire you when you're Workers' Comp,' which a jury could view as evidence of a discriminatory motive.
  • The defendants' September 26, 2025 motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the FMLA claims, and is otherwise denied.