New York State
Division of Human Rights
New York State Division of
Human Rights on the complaint of
CHARLES GEORGE TAYLOR
Jewish Board of Family & Children’s Services, Inc.
FEDERAL CHARGE NO: 16GA700686
On 11/21/2006, Charles George Taylor filed a verified complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“Division”) charging the above-named respondent with an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment because of disability in violation of N.Y. Exec. Law, art. 15 (Human Rights Law).
After investigation, and following opportunity for review of related information and evidence by the named parties, the Division has determined that there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that the respondent has engaged in or is engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of. This determination is based on the following:
There is insufficient evidence to support that the complaintant was discriminated against based on his disability. The investigation revelaed that on November 17, 2005, on August 14, 2006, and in the early part of November 2006, the complaintant asked for an accommodation for being overburdened at work such that his workload would not trigger his schizophrenia. The November 17, 2005 request is time-barred. The record revealed that the responded attempted to resolve the complaintant’s problem with the Board by having certain Board Members deal directly with his supervisor between May and June of 2006. The record showed that the complainant was also granted an accommodation on November 14, 2006 by having him no longer take the Board minutes or interface with Board members, prior to the complaintant’s filing the instant complaint. The record also showed that in November 2005, the respondent told the complainant that he could delete unwanted emails in an apparent effort to accommodate the complainant’s issue of being overworked. The investigation revelaed that after the complainant complained to a Board Member about being overburdened and apparently suggested he could sue her, the next day his supervisor removed from him the responsibility of taking the minutes at a Board meeting and interacting with Board members. The complainant was accommodated despite his inappropriate comments.
The respondent and the complainant differed as to whether the respondent offered to have the complainant meet with Personnel and his supervisor, Ms. Adams, during the week of September 18, 2006. The respondent state that the complainant declined to attend this meeting, while the complainant stated that he was not informed of the meeting.
The investigation revealed that the complainant believes that the respondent’s November 14, 2006 accommodation satisfied his needs and that he no longer felt overburdened with respect to his job responsibilities.
There was a lack of evidence to show that the complainant was reprimanded on November 14, November 17 or November 19, 2006 because he had a disability. The record indicated that the complainant had engaged in intemperate language and was insubordinate and hence the reprimand appeared warranted.
Also the evidence supported the comment that the complainant should keep his personal comments to himself-meaning not revealing that he suffered from schizophrenia, was a positive comment meant to help him, which even he said was positive.
This complaint is therefore ordered dismissed and the file closed.