A school maintenance worker who slipped while cleaning a classroom floor sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for personal injuries. He argued that the DOE failed to provide a safe work environment. The court reviewed the facts and dismissed the case, holding that the accident was related to the worker’s routine duties and not caused by any violation of law or safety rule by the DOE. This case shows how courts treat injury claims that arise during routine cleaning tasks.
Background Facts
Ahmed Aljahmi worked as a part-time cleaner at William E. Grady Career and Technical Education High School in Brooklyn. He was employed by a contractor hired by the New York City Department of Education. His job included cleaning classrooms and hallways.
On June 30, 2018, Ahmed was assigned to remove old wax and apply new wax to the floors in two classrooms. He worked with another cleaner named Alex. They first stripped the wax from one classroom using a cleaning chemical, a machine, and a squeegee. After finishing the first room, they moved furniture in the second room and prepared it for stripping.
Ahmed testified that he returned to the second classroom carrying cleaning tools when he slipped and fell. He believed the floor had been made slippery by the wax-stripping chemical, which may have been applied by mistake in an area where it was not yet supposed to be. He suffered injuries to his head, spine, hip, and knee. Ahmed and his wife filed a lawsuit claiming that the DOE failed to provide a safe place to work and violated several labor laws.
Issue
The main question was whether the DOE could be held legally responsible for Ahmed’s injuries. The court had to determine if the DOE had a duty to prevent the conditions that led to his fall, or whether the accident happened because of risks that were part of Ahmed’s normal job duties. The court also had to decide if the accident fell under the protections of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), or 241(6).
Holding
The court granted the DOE’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims brought by Ahmed and his wife. The court found that Ahmed’s injury was caused by conditions that were part of his regular work and not by any violation of the law by the DOE. It also held that the Labor Law sections cited by the plaintiffs did not apply to the type of work Ahmed was performing.
Rationale
The court first addressed the claim under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence. This law protects workers by requiring owners and contractors to provide a safe place to work. However, it does not apply when the hazard is part of the work the person was hired to perform. The court found that the risk of slipping on wax or stripping chemicals was directly related to the cleaning job Ahmed was doing. He was hired to strip and wax floors, and the presence of these substances was expected in that task.
Ahmed admitted that he was using these chemicals as part of his assignment. The court held that he knew or should have known that a slip hazard was present. Since the risk was part of his routine job and no unusual condition was shown, the DOE could not be held liable under this section.
Next, the court looked at the claim under Labor Law § 240(1), which applies to elevation-related hazards, such as falls from ladders or scaffolds. Ahmed’s fall occurred on a flat classroom floor, so this law did not apply.
The court then reviewed Labor Law § 241(6), which protects workers involved in construction, demolition, or excavation. To qualify, the work must relate to one of these activities, not routine maintenance. Ahmed was performing routine summer floor cleaning and waxing. The court concluded this was not construction-related work under the law. Therefore, § 241(6) did not apply, and the claim was dismissed.
Ahmed’s wife brought a separate claim for loss of consortium, which depends on the success of the injury claim. Since the court dismissed the underlying claims, her claim was also dismissed.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the DOE failed to properly warn or supervise. It found no evidence that DOE created the hazard or failed to fix a known problem. The plaintiffs also relied on the opinion of an engineer who stated that floor waxing work is hazardous and should involve special precautions. However, the court found this opinion did not change the result, since the risk was already part of the job.
Finally, the court found that Ahmed’s own statements were based on speculation. He was not sure exactly how the liquid ended up where he fell. He admitted he might have tracked it from another classroom or bumped into a bucket. The court held that this uncertainty made it impossible to blame the DOE or show it had done anything wrong.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the case because the injury resulted from routine work that Ahmed had been hired to do. There was no proof that the DOE created a dangerous condition or failed to address a known hazard. The laws that protect workers in construction and similar activities did not apply here because the cleaning task was not construction-related.
If you or a loved one has suffered serious injuries, contact an experienced New York personal injury lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to discuss your rights and potential claims, and to ensure you receive the justice and compensation you deserve.