Facts

Plaintiff Dionne Graham worked as a bus operator. On July 23, 2013, Graham's bus was rear-ended by a small SUV. She claimed that she suffered injuries, resulting in disabilities to her back, shoulder, elbow, and wrist. Except for a single morning of light-duty work, she never returned to work after the accident.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that after her injuries, she could no longer drive a bus. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority denied plaintiff a reasonable accommodation to return to work in an alternative assignment (other than bus operator) by constantly placing obstacles in her way. The MTA's policy of handling the interactive process differently depending on whether the injury was occupational or non-occupational caused plaintiff's case to be bounced from one unit to another and effectively denied Plaintiff a good-faith process and the opportunity to receive a reasonable accommodation. Further, the MTA's one-year leave of absence and six-month interactive process time limits are artificial and do not comply with disability laws. The MTA required too much of Graham and her doctors and not enough of its Interactive Process coordinators in searching for and finding an alternative assignment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant claimed that video showed and plaintiff's treating physician agreed that she could not have suffered injuries as a result of the negligible July 2013 fender-bender. Nonetheless, both the MTA's Transitional Duty Program and Interactive Process unit made reasonable good-faith efforts to find assignments that would provide reasonable accommodations for plaintiff's alleged disabilities. Both units offered her positions. However, she never had her doctor complete the required paperwork indicating her physical limitations and abilities. Further, she failed to participate in good faith in the search for alternative assignments that she could perform with reasonable accommodations. She was also kept off duty for years, which prevented the MTA from providing her with a reasonable accommodation assignment. Plaintiff malingered throughout the interactive process. Eventually, although she was provided with additional time in each case, she exhausted the MTA's leave and subsequent interactive process time limits and was medically separated from employment.

Damages

Plaintiff sought $310,000 in past and future lost earnings and $2,000,000 in non-economic (emotional distress) damages, and attorney's fees.

Result

Jury verdict for defendant. The jury found, inter alia, that the MTA did not fail to provide plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation.

Length

18 days