Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D.N.Y.: Nurse with herniated disc, denied light duty, failed to establish actionable discrimination, (Jul 23, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

“[S]hortly after her return, plaintiff found she could not perform a variety of tasks, such as lifting patients and equipment, or being on her feet for extended periods of time…”

Northwell Health, Inc., is entitled to summary judgment against the Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims of a nurse who suffered a herniated lumbar disc, was denied light-duty accommodations, and ultimately retired following a period of leave, a federal district court found. She did not advance any claims based on a status protected under Title VII, and most of the facts underlying her ADA and ADEA claims were time-barred. Though she referred to a June 2021 letter, in which the employer denied her light-duty accommodation request for a second time, that request was virtually identical to one the employer denied outside the limitations period, and the second denial did not constitute an independent discriminatory act for limitations purposes (Mendoza v. Northwell Health, Inc., No. 23 CV 6091 (VB) (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2026)).

Lenox Hill. Lenox Hill Hospital, according to the court, is a full-service hospital owned and operated by defendant Northwell Health, Inc. The plaintiff began working as a Registered Nurse (RN) at Lenox Hill in 1990. In 2014, she began working primarily in the Ambulatory Surgery Unit (ASU) at Lenox Hill. Patients in the ASU receive short-term care such as simple surgery and are typically discharged on the same day.

Herniated disc and leave. In 2018, the nurse suffered a herniated disc and took an approximately nine-month leave of absence. After returning from her leave of absence, she resumed her prior responsibilities, including post-operative (Post-Op) work assignments, which are focused on handling patients as they came out of surgery and often involve heavy lifting.

However, shortly after her return, the nurse found she could not perform a variety of tasks, such as lifting patients and equipment, or being on her feet for extended periods of time. She thus sought lighter pre-operative assignments more frequently.

March 2020 doctor’s note. In March 2020, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted operations in the ASU. ASU RNs were reassigned to different areas of the hospital and were expected to provide bedside care to patients. The nurse believed her back condition prevented her from providing bedside care, so she obtained a note from her doctor. The March 2020 note explained, “[Plaintiff] has herniated disc of lumbar spine and suffers from chronic back pain. She cannot stand on her feet for more than 10 minutes and she cannot lift weights more than 5 lbs. She should avoid repeated bending. She is still on various treatments for her back problem.”

Reassignment. She provided this note to a nurse in Employee Health Services (EHS), which is the department at Northwell that liaises with employees and their medical providers concerning any paperwork that may be necessary for an accommodation. As a result, she was assigned to a “COVID Liaison” position, in which she was responsible for communicating with the families of COVID-19 patients about their conditions.

New supervisor. In November 2020, however, Lenox Hill hired a new Nurse Manager in the ASU who became her new direct supervisor. In March 2021, the new supervisor directed the nurse to work in Post-Op and she refused on the basis of her back condition. When she refused, the new supervisor allegedly became irate and yelled at her. The new supervisor ultimately instructed her to go to EHS if she could not work in Post-Op.

To EHS again. She went to EHS and requested a “light duty” accommodation under which she would work only in Pre-Op and no longer have to “float” to Post-Op. She ultimately provided another doctor’s note on March 23 that prohibited her from carrying more than 15 pounds, as well as from squatting, bending, or climbing. The March 2021 note further stated she could not stand for more than 10 minutes at a time or sit for more than 20 minutes at a time.

April 2021 accommodation denial. A senior HR specialist reviewed her note and reached out to her managers, but they did not believe she could be accommodated because the restrictions prevented her from performing the essential functions of an RN, including providing patient care. And on April 4, 2021, her supervisor emailed her denying her light-duty accommodation request.

Leave of absence. After seeing this email, she called her union, the New York Professional Nurses Union (NYPNU), and applied for and was approved for a leave of absence, which she began on April 5, 2021.

Lenox Hill personnel communicated with her during her leave of absence to obtain clarifying or additional medical documentation in hopes of finding a potential accommodation, and her physician ultimately submitted an updated note on June 14, 2021, stating, “Patient is cleared to work in the pre-op area to interview patients. She may stand or sit to her discretion according to her comfort level. She may lift up to 5-10 lbs.”

Second accommodation denial. Then, on June 24, 2021, the HR specialist sent her a letter again explaining that Lenox Hill could not accommodate her light-duty request. The HR specialist explained that the June 14 doctor’s note failed to address inconsistencies in the March 2021 note regarding the scope and duration of the requested accommodation. She further explained, consistent with a prior letter of May 17, 2021, that the nurse’s light-duty request nevertheless imposed restrictions which would preclude her from performing the “essential duties” of her job as an RN, such as providing direct patient care.

Disability leave. The nurse did not communicate with anyone from Lenox Hill again after receiving the HR specialist’s June 24, 2021, letter. Lenox Hill offered her a liaison position it thought might be suitable for her. The position involved interviewing patients, and the nurse felt she could not accept the position because it required her to stand too much. She was then approved for long-term disability benefits as of October 2, 2021.

EEOC charge and resignation. She ultimately filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on March 25, 2022. She then resigned on May 24, 2023, while on leave of absence.

Lawsuit and removal. She brought suit on April 21, 2023, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and on July 14, 2023, asserting claims under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The defendants removed the case to federal district court and moved for summary judgment.

Title VII? Granting the defendants’ motion in part, the court first found that the nurse failed to advance any claims based on a status protected under Title VII. She alleged claims based only on her age and disability.

ADA and ADEA claims. Her remaining federal claims were untimely. ADA and ADEA claims, the court noted, are subject to a statute of limitations that requires a plaintiff to file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of an alleged adverse employment action. Here, it was undisputed that she filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC on March 25, 2022. Thus, she could only bring suit for discrete acts occurring on or after May 29, 2021.

Insofar as her claims were based on discrete acts that occurred before May 29, 2021—such as the denial of her light-duty accommodation request, alteration of her job description, or placing her on a leave of absence, all of which occurred on or before April 5, 2021—those claims were time barred.

The second accommodation denial? She referred to the June 24, 2021, letter from the HR specialist, in which the employer denied her light-duty accommodation request for a second time, but that request was virtually identical to one the employer denied in April 2021, outside the limitations period, and the second denial, the court found, did not constitute an “independent discriminatory act” for limitations purposes.

Supplemental jurisdiction declined. Finally, having determined that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the nurse’s federal law claims brought pursuant to Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, the court found that it no longer had original jurisdiction over any claim, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the nurse’s remaining NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and NYLL claims.

The case is No. 23 CV 6091 (VB).

Judge: Briccetti, V.

Attorneys: Lindsay Michelle Goldbrum (Goddard Law) for Lourdes Mendoza. Brian Daniel Murphy (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton) for Northwell Health, Inc. dba Lenox Hill Hospital, Eleonora Shapiro, Sean Kearney, and Kimberly Jawin.

Companies: Northwell Health, Inc.; Lenox Hill Hospital

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Procedure NewYorkNews