Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—2d Cir.: Fired union pension fund employee with vein condition revives failure-to-accommodate claim, (Jul 24, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

His physician’s note informed the fund that some instructions should be “strictly followed,” such as avoiding prolonged “walking, standing, sitting (driving) and squatting.”

A union pension fund outreach coordinator with a serious vein condition, fired by 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund after he could not return to work under the fund’s conditions, which included in-person presentations at some facilities to which it would take him longer than 30 minutes to drive, has revived his ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, the Second Circuit ruled. Although the fund offered to remove his four most distant stops, an employer’s response does not “accommodate a disabled individual’s limitations” if the response is “ineffective.” The district court did not consider whether the route change accommodated his limitations, and many questions of fact, including the extent of his limitations, remained. The district court’s denial of his Rule 59(a) motion as to his disability discrimination claim, however, was not reviewable by the federal appeals court (Raymond v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, No. 25-707-cv (2d Cir. July 23, 2026)).

Union fund outreach coordinator. The employee, according to the court, was employed by the by 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund (NBF) for nearly 30 years. He began his employment in various administrative roles, first working in the supply room and the mail room, and then at a desk job in the claims department. In 2003, he was promoted to Outreach Coordinator. Outreach coordinators engage with healthcare workers to provide union members with information on pension applications and estimates, and they give presentations to them about those benefits.

Site visits. Outreach coordinators each service nursing homes, hospitals, and other medical and care facilities within a specific zone. Each coordinator is assigned to a specific zone by the Director of Outreach.

After his promotion to outreach coordinator, the employee serviced a variety of zones across New York State, including in upstate New York, Long Island, Brooklyn, and Queens. Between 2010 and 2015, he was at times assigned to Area I, which covered most of Long Island, and at other times to Area J, which covered the borough of Queens and western Long Island. Area I extends to the far eastern tip of Long Island, meaning that visiting some of the facilities required him to drive for several hours from his home.

Vein condition. In 2010, the employee was diagnosed with superficial thrombophlebitis, which can cause “painful, sometimes life-threatening blood clots.” On June 7, 2010, he informed NBF of his diagnosis by sending the employer a notice and proof of claim for disability benefits. He continued his role as outreach coordinator after his diagnosis, and he worked in the role for five years thereafter without incident.

Hospitalization for embolism and leave. In August 2015, however, he suffered a pulmonary embolism, which caused life-threatening blood clots that required hospitalization. He was then placed on short-term disability (STD) leave for 26 weeks, until January 2016.

Doctor’s note. When he returned to work in January, he provided NBF with a doctor’s note that stated that he should work with “light duties restrictions,” meaning “half of the standing, walking and lifting that he normally does.” It also noted that “[s]itting [was] advisable for a period of 4 weeks” before he could “return to normal job duties.” Because “[[he]] mostly sits,” the director acknowledged in an internal email chain that NBF “c[ould] accommodate the request” to limit his time on his feet. Cleared to return to work with these restrictions, he resumed servicing half of Area J. He serviced this zone for two years without any problems.

New assignment. In 2017, however, one of his colleagues left NBF, leaving an area without an outreach coordinator. The director reassigned the employee to Area I.

In December 2017, the employee emailed his supervisors, including the director, to express concerns about his reassigned route. He attached to his email a doctor’s note that stated that “[i]t should be clearly evident that there are restrictions in his physical activities not only to diminish the recurrence of genetically provoked deep thrombophlebitis of the legs[,] but also life threatening pulmonary embolism.” The note also informed NBF that some of the doctor’s instructions should be “strictly followed,” such as to “[a]void prolong[ed] walking, standing, sitting (driving) and squatting.”

Relieved of four most distant facilities. Despite these concerns, and in the face of the director’s insistence, the employee began servicing Area I on January 8, 2018. On January 12, 2018, the director informed him that the four facilities furthest from his house would be serviced by a different outreach coordinator. He worked Area I—minus the four furthest facilities—without incident for six months.

Worsening condition and hospitalization. His condition worsened, however, and, in the spring of 2018, he was hospitalized. On June 20, 2018, he sent NBF a letter from his doctor explaining that his “left deep venous system... is permanently damaged by the phlebitis, so much so that the blood in the left leg is going in reverse instead of draining towards his heart when he is standing.” Due to the permanent damage, the doctor “strongly recommend[ed] that [[he]] should absolutely avoid prolonged continuous standing, walking, sitting or driving without elevating his legs for more than thirty minutes continuously.”

He briefly returned to work, but shortly thereafter, he was hospitalized again, during which his doctor recommended he take STD leave. NBF did not respond to the doctor’s note or otherwise contact him to discuss its contents.

Second complaint. Sometime on or around July 27, 2018, the employee again complained to NBF about his area reassignment and the length of his drives. Although it is not clear exactly what was said, at the very least, he communicated that the new route required “[m]uch longer driving” of sometimes two to three hours, and that his leg vein is “now dead.”

HR’s response. When he received no response, on July 31, he sent a letter to NBF’s human resources department (HR) requesting that HR respond to the doctor’s note. An HR official called him, and he asked the official if he could have his old assignment back, that is be reassigned to Area J, which required more frequent but fewer drives than his current Area I assignment. The HR official denied this request, explaining that NBF had already made special exceptions for him when they removed the four furthest facilities from his route.

STD leave and termination. Following the advice of his doctor, the employee began STD leave on August 6, 2018. NBF insisted that he could only return to work if he had a “clearance note stating... no restrictions.” After further back-and-forth with HR, on February 6, 2019, unable to return to work without any restrictions, he applied for long-term disability leave, and NBF immediately terminated his employment.

Lawsuit and failure-to-accommodate claim. The sued, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA, claiming that NBF violated the Act by (1) denying his request for reasonable accommodations, and (2) firing him due to his disability. The district court granted NBF summary judgment as to his failure-to-accommodate claim, finding that he failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact that, while employed by NBF, the employer refused to make reasonable accommodations for his disability.

Disability discrimination claim tried. The district court denied NBF’s motion for summary judgment on the disability discrimination claim, which went to trial. On July 1, 2024 the jury returned a verdict for NBF, and the court entered judgment reflecting this verdict on July 2.

Rule 59(a) motion denied. On July 30, 2024, the employee filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a), arguing that the jury’s verdict contravened the weight of the evidence. He also asked the district court to amend its summary judgment order on the failure-to-accommodate claim under Rule 59(e). The district court denied his motion as to both granting a new trial and amending the summary judgment order, and he appealed to the Second Circuit.

Failure to accommodate. Vacating the district court’s entry of summary judgment, the federal appeals court concluded that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard when analyzing whether NBF’s removal of the four most distant stops was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The district court opinion granting summary judgment to NBF on the failure-to-accommodate claim stated that “[d]efendant repeatedly accommodated [[the employee’s] perceived disability.”

Incorrect standard. Here, the appeals court noted, “to qualify as a reasonable accommodation, the accommodation ‘must be effective.’” If the employer’s response does not “accommodate a disabled individual’s limitations,” the response is “ineffective.” To be an effective accommodation, then, the removal of the four stops had to address the employee’s physical limitations and enable him to perform the essential functions of his job. Because the district court did not consider whether the route change accommodated his limitations, and instead apparently treated any action that NBF took to respond to his request as a reasonable accommodation, it applied an incorrect legal standard.

Remaining questions of fact. And many questions of fact remained, according to the Second Circuit. First, the record was unclear as to the extent of the employee’s limitations. Though his June 27, 2018 doctor’s note did suggest that he cannot drive for more than 30 minutes at a time, it is up to the jury to decide whether the note accurately described his physical limitations. Second, even if it were undisputed that he cannot sit for more than 30 minutes at a time, there was a dispute of fact as to whether his assignment in Area I required him to drive uninterrupted for longer than that. Though by NBF’s own account, removing the four farthest stops still left him with at least nine facilities that were over 30 minutes away from his home, but the parties still disputed whether these facility visits required more than thirty minutes of continuous driving.

Existence of facially reasonable accommodation? Finally, the court observed that there remained a question whether a facially reasonable accommodation existed. The employee proposed reassignment to Area J, but the employer argued that Area J was not vacant. It was clear from the record that the director frequently reassigned outreach coordinators to different areas, but what was not clear was whether this was only done to fill existing vacancies, or whether areas were frequently passed between existing outreach coordinators. On remand, the district court would need to determine whether this reassignment request was plausible, keeping in mind that the employee bears only a “light burden of production” as to the facial reasonableness of a proposed accommodation.

Disability discrimination. Finally, the employee argued that the district court erred in denying his Rule 59(a) motion for new trial as to his disability discrimination claim, but that denial was not an appealable order, according to the Second Circuit. Under circuit precedent, the reviewability of a Rule 59(a) weight-of-the-evidence decision depends on the outcome of the district judge’s decision: if the district judge overturns the jury verdict on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, it is reviewable; if the judge upholds a jury verdict over a losing party’s motion that the verdict contravenes the weight of the evidence, that decision is not reviewable. This was exactly such a latter appeal.

The case is No. 25-707-cv.

Judge: Sack, R.

Attorneys: Joseph Bacchi (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan) for Sean R. Raymond, Sr. Rachel S. Fischer (Proskauer Rose) for 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund.

Companies: 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Procedure ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews