Bethea v. Winfield Security Corporation

Background

Diamin Bethea sued her employer, Winfield Security Corporation, alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). In an earlier order, the Court granted in part and denied in part Winfield’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). That order dismissed Bethea’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims.

Bethea then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. That rule permits reconsideration when the court overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters that could reasonably have changed its earlier decision. The motion was supported by Bethea and by a brief from nonprofit organizations described in the opinion as committed to protecting low-wage pregnant and postpartum New Yorkers.

NYSHRL claim

The earlier order read Bethea’s NYSHRL claim as alleging ordinary pregnancy discrimination based on Winfield’s failure to provide light work. Under that theory, the Court found that Bethea adequately alleged that she was pregnant, requested a pregnancy accommodation, and was not accommodated, but did not allege that Winfield accommodated other employees with similar work limitations.

On reconsideration, the Court concluded that the complaint could also be read to assert a failure-to-accommodate claim under NYSHRL § 296(3)(a). The Court explained that this type of claim uses the same standards as a federal Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation claim. It held that Bethea sufficiently alleged that she was pregnant, informed Winfield of her condition, could perform her job with a reasonable accommodation such as light work, and was refused that accommodation. Bethea’s motion for reconsideration as to her second claim was therefore granted.

NYCHRL claim

The earlier order read Bethea’s NYCHRL claim as alleging pregnancy discrimination based on different treatment because of her pregnancy. The complaint could also be read to assert a failure-to-accommodate claim under the NYCHRL, which the Court described as having a more lenient standard. Under that standard, Bethea needed to allege that Winfield knew about her pregnancy, that she requested a reasonable accommodation, and that Winfield denied the request.

The Court stated that Bethea’s allegations met this standard. Bethea’s motion for reconsideration as to her third claim was therefore granted.

Ruling and effect

Judge Analisa Torres granted Bethea’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of her NYSHRL and NYCHRL pregnancy-discrimination claims. The parties must proceed with discovery on the second and third counts of the complaint. The Court also stated that it would refer the parties to mediation by separate order and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 44. The opinion does not state a ruling here on Bethea’s Title VII or retaliation claims.