A Manhattan appellate court advanced on Tuesday a lawsuit against Harlem Assembly Member Eddie Gibbs, which alleged that the lawmaker illegally fired his senior adviser a day before he was scheduled to have a diabetes-related surgical amputation.
Keith Lilly, a veteran Harlem political operator, sued Gibbs for discrimination on the basis of disability in 2024 — nearly a year after his firing. Lilly alleged in his suit that his health emergency caused Gibbs to view him as “damaged goods and callously terminate him in the midst of a health crisis he was experiencing” in violation of city and state human rights laws.
Gibbs asked the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, to throw the lawsuit out completely on the grounds that Gibbs was immune from the lawsuit as an Assembly member and that it was not properly argued. In its recent decision, the court largely rejected these arguments, letting most of the lawsuit move forward with a technical exception.
In his complaint, Lilly charged that Gibbs fired him two days after visiting him in the hospital and finding that Lilly would need extensive medical leave. He’s asking for at least $500,000 in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages, backpay, attorney’s fees and reimbursement for lost 401(k) contributions.
Gibbs did not respond to an amNewYork Law request for comment.
The appellate court decision comes a month before Gibbs is set to face a competitive primary against former City Council Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala, as well as Tamika Mapp and William Smith, who previously challenged Gibbs in 2024.
“We live in an era of would-be kings, and this decision serves as a powerful reminder that no one is above the law and for that reason it’s a victory for the rule of law itself,” Lilly’s attorney, David Krauss, said of the decision.
The heart of the appellate court’s ruling is that firing someone days after they ask for medical leave is enough to make a credible case for discrimination.
On July 24, 2023, Gibbs and another staff member visited Lilly at the hospital where he had been admitted after he discovered a “hole and swelling” in his left foot related to Type-II diabetes, according to the lawsuit. Lilly allegedly told Gibbs that he would probably be hospitalized “for a while” after his scheduled surgery to have his toes amputated.
Two days later, Lilly alleged that he was “abruptly terminated” without an explanation, according to the court papers. At the time of determination, the suit alleges Lilly had no negative performance feedback of any kind.
Over a month later, Lilly’s symptoms progressed, and Lilly’s left leg was amputated up to the knee.
Keith Lilly (center), a former senior adviser to Assemblymember Eddie Gibbs, won a recent appellate decision alllowing his disability discrimination suit to move forward.
The decision also upheld Lilly’s claim that Gibbs failed to accommodate his disability, because the lawmaker allegedly fired him without any attempt to try to work out a solution or talk about time off.
The appellate court also allowed Lilly’s claim that his firing came just days before his one-year job anniversary, which would have made him eligible for protections from termination while on medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Gibbs argued the claim should be thrown out because Lilly was not technically eligible. The court, however, ruled the claim should move forward.
Gibbs argued that as a state Assembly member, he shouldn’t be sued in this court under these specific discrimination laws. The court rejected this, saying that at this early stage in the lawsuit, there is enough evidence to show he can be sued under State, City, and Federal employment laws.
The only claim the court took issue with is one where Lilly had claimed Gibbs was “aiding and abetting” disability discrimination, on the grounds that Gibbs is the only person accused of violating the law.
Gibbs had asked the court to strike the sentence from Lilly’s lawsuit, claiming he had viewed Lilly as “damaged goods” in the wake of his surgery. The court found that the allegation is relevant.