Sheng v. M&T Bank Corp.

What the court decided

A bank employee who had worked remotely from California became pregnant and, after a reorganization, was told to report to Buffalo; her doctor said she should not fly during the pregnancy. After her lawyer sent a demand, the bank offered to reinstate her with remote work for the rest of the pregnancy. The court held that the offer, made right after a monetary demand was rejected in a call both lawyers agreed was covered by Rule 408, was a settlement offer that should have been kept from the jury. It also held that failing to engage in the interactive process is not an independent ADA claim, but "can be introduced as evidence tending to show disability discrimination," and that "[c]onditioning proposed accommodations on the dropping of claims does not fulfill" the employer's obligation.

Who won

The employee won a new trial. The Second Circuit vacated the jury verdict for the bank and the order disqualifying both parties' lawyers, and dismissed her appeal on the State-law claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Why it matters for workers with a medical condition

An employer that refuses to talk about an accommodation hands you evidence. And an offer of the accommodation you asked for, conditioned on dropping your claims, is not the good-faith process the law requires.

Key passage: 848 F.3d 78 at 84-87.

We do not host a copy of this decision. The full text is available free from United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (official slip opinion).

This page summarizes the decision in plain language.