NEW YORK, Jan 5 (Reuters) - An appeals court Thursday
tossed out a $600,000 discrimination judgment against a law
firm that fired an attorney claiming to have bipolar disorder
who billed clients for personal expenses, including hotel
rooms, pornographic movies, and escort services.
The Appellate Division, First Department, criticized an
administrative law judge at the State Division of Human Rights
for "incomprehensibly" finding in favor of James Hazen and
awarding him $50,000 for mental anguish. A subsequent order
from the departmental commissioner -- after Hazen appealed,
seeking lost wages -- had granted an additional $550,000 in
lost pay.
The court found that the law firm, Hill Betts & Nash, had
no indication that Hazen suffered from bipolar disorder at the
time it terminated him in 2006, since he refused to give them
any details about a "mood" problem he claimed was the cause of
his actions.
"All that was before HBN when it terminated the petitioner
on February 3 was that he had charged more than $21,000 in
hotels and other personal expenses to the corporate credit card
and tried to bill HBN's clients for personal expenses," Justice
James Catterson wrote for the unanimous panel.
The court also faulted Hazen for claiming that he turned to
hotel rooms and escorts only when he suffered from bouts with
his mental illness, since he also acknowledged booking the
rooms weeks in advance and admitted he had done the same thing
in 2001, when he tried to list an escort as a client expense.
"The only way to credit the testimony that his disorder
caused him to engage in such behavior, is to accept the
preposterous notion that he was able to predict his mental
state weeks in advance and plan accordingly," Catterson wrote.
Moreover, even if his mental illness led to his actions, "a
petitioner's disability does not shield him from the
consequences of workplace misconduct," according to the
ruling.
Thus, even if there were evidence that his behavior was
attributable to his disorder -- which, the court emphasized, it
did not believe -- "the firm was not required to excuse that
misconduct as an accommodation," Catterson wrote.
William Roth, Hazen's attorney, said his client had not yet
decided whether to appeal.
Diane Windholz, the lawyer for Hill Betts & Nash, said she
and the firm were "very pleased" with the decision.
"They clearly found that the firm at all times acted
appropriately with regard to Mr. Hazen," she said.
The case is Hazen v. Hill Betts & Nash et al, Appellate
Division, First Department, New York State Supreme Court, New
York County, No. 5517.
For Hazen: William H. Roth
For Hill Betts & Nash: Diane Windholz of Jackson Lewis
(Reporting by Joseph Ax; additional reporting by Leigh
Jones)
Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal