If this was Finch Pruyn s sole argument, the court would deny summary judgment because there are factual issues as to whether the substitute accommodation was indeed equivalent to that which Graves sought. 2 Finch Pruyn also asserts that while it denied Graves s request for an additional two weeks, it granted an equivalent accommodation because it provided Graves with three weeks partial duty at full pay. Facts Over a lengthy career, Graves worked his way up from laborer in the wood room of paper manufacturer Finch Pruyn to a position of paper 1 Familiarity with the Circuit s opinion is presumed. Accordingly, Finch Pruyn s decision was reasonable as a matter of law, its motion for summary judgment is granted and Graves s complaint is dismissed. ( Finch Pruyn ) has renewed its summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) claim of its employee, George Graves.1 The sole issue is whether Graves was denied a reasonable accommodation when Finch Pruyn refused to give him two weeks unpaid leave.2 An objective evaluation of the circumstances existing at the time of Finch Pruyn s decision reveals that it had already accommodated Graves for a year, it was confronting a business hardship because of Graves s absence, and it had no assurance that the requested accommodation would likely result in Graves s successful return to work. Introduction Following remand from the Second Circuit, Finch Pruyn & Company, Inc. FOR THE DEFENDANT: Couch, White Law Firm 540 Broadway Albany, NY 12201 MICHAEL T. ![]() ![]() Smith 111 Broadway Suite 1305 New York, NY 10008 NATHANIEL B. ![]() _ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Office of Nathaniel B. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _ GEORGE GRAVES, Plaintiff, 1:03-CV-266 (GLS/RFT) v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |