Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

McMillan v. City of New York

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

October 11, 2012, Argued; March 4, 2013, Decided

Docket No. 11-3932


 [*122]  JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge:

] One of the central goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., is to ensure that, if reasonably practicable, individuals are  [*123]  able to obtain and maintain employment without regard to whether they have a disability. To accomplish this goal, the ADA requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals. See id. § 12112(b)(5). This  [**2] case highlights the importance of conducting a fact-specific analysis in ADA claims.

It is undisputed that Rodney McMillan's severe disability requires treatment that prevents him from arriving to work at a consistent time each day. In many, if not most, employment contexts, a timely arrival is an essential function of the position, and a plaintiff's inability to arrive on time would result in his failure to establish a fundamental element of a prima facie case of employment discrimination. But if we draw all reasonable inferences in McMillan's favor—as we must at summary judgment—it is not evident that a timely arrival at work is an essential function of McMillan's job, provided that he is able to offset the time missed due to tardiness with additional hours worked to complete the actual essential functions of his job.

In our view, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge) did not conduct a sufficiently detailed analysis of the facts that tend to undermine the City's claim that a specific arrival time is an essential function of McMillan's position before granting summary judgment for the City. VACATED and REMANDED.


Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

711 F.3d 120 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4454 **; 27 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 929; 2013 WL 779742

RODNEY MCMILLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, -- v. -- CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.1

Subsequent History: As Amended April 16, 2013.

Prior History:  [**1] Plaintiff-Appellant Rodney McMillan appeals from the August 23, 2011 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee the City of New York's motion for summary judgment. We hold that the district court's grant of summary judgment with regard to the disability discrimination claim and failure to accommodate claims was based on an incomplete factual analysis.

McMillan v. City of New York, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95062 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2011)

Disposition: VACATED and REMANDED.


arrive, essential function, accommodations, disability, tardiness, district court, late arrival, reasonable accommodation, employees, lunch, undue hardship, prima facie case, summary judgment, start time, disciplined, matter of law, one-hour, cases

Business & Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, Age Discrimination, ADEA Enforcement, Civil Rights Law, Protection of Disabled Persons, Americans With Disabilities Act, Accommodations, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Labor & Employment Law, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Burden Shifting, Employee Burdens of Proof, Disability Discrimination, ADA Enforcement, Reasonable Accommodations, General Overview, Scope & Definitions, Qualified Individuals With Disabilities, Interactive Process, Circumstantial Evidence