IN RE: GERALDINE COLES (2014)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Donna M. Siwek, J.], entered January 27, 2014) to review a determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights.   The determination rejected petitioner's claim that respondent Erie County Sheriff's Office discriminated against her based on a disability.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

“Pursuant to Executive Law § 296(3)(b), employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, provided that the accommodations do not impose an undue hardship on the employer.   A reasonable accommodation is defined in relevant part as an action that permits an employee with a disability to perform his or her job activities in a reasonable manner” (Matter of New Venture Gear, Inc. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 41 AD3d 1265, 1266 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see § 292 [21–e] ).  “In reviewing the determination of SDHR's Commissioner, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner ․, and ‘we must confirm the determination so long as it is based on substantial evidence’ “ (New Venture Gear, Inc., 41 AD3d at 1266;  see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Granelle], 70 N.Y.2d 100, 106;  Matter of Mohawk Val. Orthopedics, LLP v Carcone, 66 AD3d 1350, 1351).

We reject petitioner's further contention that ECSO erred in failing to engage in the interactive process.   The Commissioner of SDHR properly determined that no reasonable accommodation was available for her particular condition and that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her “inmate escort” assignment or any other deputy sheriff assignment that petitioner identified and, therefore, there was no duty for ECSO to engage in such interactive process (see McElwee v. County of Orange, 700 F3d 635, 642).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court