Can a New York Employer Give You Attendance Points for Disability-Related Medical Absences?

You told your supervisor about the appointments. You brought the doctor’s notes. And the points kept coming anyway — half a point for leaving early for infusion therapy, a full point for the flare-up day, another for the specialist visit that could only be scheduled mid-shift. At some number, the handbook says, points become a final warning. Then termination.

Points-based attendance systems — sometimes called “no-fault” attendance policies, because they penalize every absence regardless of reason — run large workplaces across New York: airlines, hospitals, warehouses, call centers, retail chains. Their appeal is neutrality. Their legal problem is the same thing: a policy that treats every absence identically is, by design, refusing to consider whether an absence is a disability accommodation the law requires.

In July 2026, New York’s civil-rights agency said so in a way employers statewide will have to notice.

The July 2026 NYSDHR agreement with American Airlines

On July 13, 2026, the New York State Division of Human Rights announced an agreement with American Airlines Group and its affiliated carriers — American Airlines, Envoy Air, Republic Airways, and Piedmont Airlines — following a Division-initiated investigation into reports that employees were penalized for disability-related absences under points-based attendance policies. The complaint alleged that accumulated points triggered discipline or termination even when the absences related to protected medical conditions.

Under the agreement, the airlines committed to revising their policies for New York-based employees to incorporate the New York State Human Rights Law’s definition of disability — and to apply that broader definition, not just the narrower federal ADA standard, when evaluating accommodation requests for disability-related absences. (The announcement frames this as an agreement reached through engagement between the parties; it does not describe monetary terms or an admission of wrongdoing.)

Two things make this worth every New York worker’s attention:

1. It was Division-initiated. No individual employee had to file first. The state’s enforcement arm went looking at a category of policy it considers structurally risky.
2. The fix was definitional. The core change is which definition of disability the attendance system must respect — and New York’s is one of the broadest in the country.

When attendance points cross the legal line in New York

Attendance policies are lawful in general. The line gets crossed in recognizable patterns:

Points for absences the employer knows are disability-related. Once an employer knows (or reasonably should know) that absences flow from a medical condition — you disclosed it, submitted notes, or requested accommodation — mechanically assessing points treats a protected characteristic as misconduct. The accommodation framework requires an individualized process, and “the system did it automatically” is a description of the violation, not a defense.

Refusing to excuse appointment time as an accommodation. Recurring treatment — dialysis, chemotherapy, physical therapy, mental-health care, specialist monitoring — often can only happen during work hours. A modified schedule or unpaid time for treatment is a classic reasonable accommodation. An employer that says “we don’t excuse absences for anyone” is announcing that it refuses to engage in the process New York law requires.

Discipline that begins after disclosure. If your record was clean until you disclosed a condition, and the write-ups then arrived on schedule, the timing itself is evidence — of discrimination, of accommodation failure, and often of retaliation, which is a separate claim with its own remedies.

Termination at a points threshold that swept in protected absences. A firing “for attendance” where the point total includes disability-related days is a wrongful-termination fact pattern, and severance offers in that posture deserve review before signing — see our wrongful termination practice.

Why New York’s definition matters more than the ADA’s

The federal ADA protects impairments that substantially limit a major life activity. The NYSHRL protects any physical, mental, or medical impairment demonstrable by medically accepted techniques — no “substantially limits” hurdle — and since February 2020 it covers every New York employer, regardless of size. Conditions employers routinely wave off (migraines, anxiety disorders, colitis, a healing injury) are disabilities under state law. That definitional gap is exactly what the NYSDHR agreement targeted: an attendance system calibrated only to the ADA quietly under-protects New York employees, and the state’s position is that the broader state standard governs.

For the full framework — the interactive process, “100% healed” policies, leave as an accommodation, and the deadlines — see our disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate guide.

If points are stacking up: what to do now

Frequently Asked Questions

Are “no-fault” attendance policies illegal in New York?

Not by themselves. What the law prohibits is applying them mechanically to disability-related absences. Once absences are connected to a medical condition, New York employers must evaluate excusing them — or otherwise modifying the policy — as a reasonable accommodation, using the NYSHRL’s broad disability definition. A policy with no accommodation valve is a lawsuit generator, which is what the July 2026 NYSDHR airline agreement was about.

Do I have to tell my employer my diagnosis to get absences excused?

No. You must connect the absences to a medical condition and cooperate with reasonable documentation requests — typically a provider’s note describing functional limitations and the treatment schedule. Demands for your full medical file or your specific diagnosis generally exceed what the process allows.

My employer says the attendance system is automated and nobody can change it. Is that a defense?

No — it’s close to an admission. The accommodation obligation belongs to the employer, not the software. If the system cannot excuse disability-related absences, the employer is required to handle them outside the system.

I was fired after hitting the points threshold, but some points were for medical days. Do I have a case?

Quite possibly. A termination based on a point total that includes disability-related absences raises failure-to-accommodate and discrimination claims, and if the points accelerated after you disclosed or complained, retaliation as well. Preserve your point ledger and get the timeline reviewed promptly — deadlines run from the termination.

What are the deadlines?

Under the NYSHRL: 3 years to sue in court, and 3 years to file administratively with the NYS Division of Human Rights for conduct on or after February 15, 2024. For federal ADA claims: an EEOC charge within 300 days, then 90 days to sue after a right-to-sue letter. If a union contract covers you, grievance clocks may be far shorter — check both tracks.

Does the American Airlines agreement mean I can sue my airline employer?

The agreement is a policy-change commitment for New York-based employees of those carriers, not a class recovery. But it is a clear statement of the NYSDHR’s enforcement position on points-based policies — useful context for any New York worker, in any industry, whose attendance discipline swept in disability-related absences. Whether your facts support a claim depends on your record and timeline.

---

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The NYSDHR agreement described above is reported from the Division’s public announcement; the allegations it references were allegations, and the announcement does not state an admission of wrongdoing. This article is general information, not legal advice. Our employment law practice serves workers across Long Island and New York. Call (516) 750-0595.