Background
William Kocher managed more than 80 employees in Mount Sinai Hospital’s information-technology department. In January 2020, complications from a gallbladder condition left him hospitalized and then in rehabilitation for nine weeks, and he became disabled. Mount Sinai knew of his condition and his request for long-term disability leave through the end of 2020. Kocher alleged that the hospital failed to accommodate him and failed to discuss a possible accommodation under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The record showed no dispute that Mount Sinai did nothing to initiate an interactive process after learning of Kocher’s need. There was also evidence, however, that he may have been entirely unable to work during the relevant period. Supreme Court denied both sides judgment on the accommodation claims. The First Department largely affirmed but granted Kocher summary judgment on his distinct City Human Rights Law claim for failure to engage in a timely cooperative dialogue.
The Court’s Holding
An employer cannot obtain summary judgment on a reasonable-accommodation claim by jumping directly to the conclusion that the employee could not perform the job. Under both state and city law, its failure to undertake a good-faith interactive process prevented that result. At trial on the State Human Rights Law claim, Kocher will still bear the burden of identifying a reasonable accommodation that would have permitted him to perform the position’s essential functions. Evidence of complete inability to work likewise prevented him from winning that claim on summary judgment.
The City law goes further. Administrative Code section 8-107(28) makes the cooperative dialogue an independently enforceable obligation. Because no factual dispute existed that Mount Sinai failed to engage once it knew of the disability and request, Kocher was entitled to judgment on that claim even though the ultimate feasibility of an accommodation remained unresolved. The decision separates process liability from the merits of whether leave, remote work, reassignment, or another measure would have been reasonable.
Key Takeaways
- The City Human Rights Law makes failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue independently actionable.
- An employer cannot win an accommodation claim by assuming inability to work without first undertaking a good-faith process.
- The employee may still need to prove that a reasonable accommodation would have enabled performance of essential duties.
Why It Matters
New York City employers should trigger a documented dialogue whenever they learn that a medical condition may affect work, even if the employee seeks extended leave or appears unlikely to return soon. Human-resources personnel should acknowledge the request, obtain appropriately limited medical information, identify essential duties, explore alternatives, invite the employee’s input, and issue a written determination. A disability carrier’s paperwork does not replace the employer’s own City-law process, and silence can create liability apart from the accommodation outcome.
Employees and counsel should likewise distinguish the claims. A cooperative-dialogue violation turns on whether the employer timely exchanged information in good faith; a reasonable-accommodation claim also asks whether an effective and reasonable option existed. Employers defending summary judgment need evidence of the conversation, options considered, follow-up, and reasons for the final decision. The safest practice is to begin promptly and continue until the parties reach a reasoned conclusion, rather than treating uncertain prognosis as permission to do nothing.
The decision should be applied with attention to its procedural posture. A ruling on a motion to dismiss tests whether documents conclusively defeat pleaded facts; summary judgment asks whether admissible proof leaves a material factual dispute; and appellate review of a discretionary or record-based determination is more deferential. Practitioners should therefore use the opinion for the rule it actually decides, preserve the documents the panel found important, and avoid treating an affirmance as resolution of questions the court expressly left for later proceedings. As a practical next step, counsel should compare the governing documents and motion record with the facts of any new matter, identify the elements on which the prevailing party supplied admissible proof, and calendar any statutory or contractual requirements implicated by the holding. Transactional teams should also convert the lesson into a checklist, form revision, or internal control. That discipline is especially important in New York practice, where a clear substantive rule may still produce a different result when the agreement, evidentiary record, preservation history, or requested remedy changes.