Nande v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

57 A.D.3d 318, 869 N.Y.2d 83

This text of 57 A.D.3d 318 (Nande v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nande v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 57 A.D.3d 318, 869 N.Y.2d 83 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Defendants produced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its termination of plaintiff, to wit, a work force reduction during which associates in plaintiffs hiring class were either promoted or reduced according to each area’s needs. In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons offered for his termination were merely pretextual (see Jordan v Bates Adv. Holdings, Inc., 46 AD3d 440 [2007], lv denied 11 NY3d 701 [2008]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs contentions, defendants did not fail to reasonably accommodate his disability in violation of Executive Law § 296 (3) (a) and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107 (15) (a). Rather, there is ample evidence that defendants provided plaintiff with various accommodations to assist him with his debilitating back injury. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ. [See 17 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51819(D).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jordan v. Bates Advertising Holdings, Inc.
46 A.D.3d 440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.3d 318, 869 N.Y.2d 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nande-v-jp-morgan-chase-co-nyappdiv-2008.