Shiber v. Centerview Partners LLC

Background

Kathryn Shiber sued her former employer, Centerview Partners LLC, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Centerview offered Shiber a position in its three-year analyst program, and she began working in July 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked remotely from her home in New Jersey and never entered Centerview’s New York City offices. Centerview terminated her employment in September 2020. Shiber alleges that she was fired because of her disability.

The court previously dismissed Shiber’s New York State and New York City claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It held that a nonresident plaintiff must allege that the discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York, and it concluded that Shiber had not done so because she worked from New Jersey. The court also found that her earlier allegations showed only that she might work in New York at some future point.

Motion to Amend

Shiber moved for leave to file a third amended complaint. She relied on new allegations and the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in a prior related proceeding, which held that New York’s human-rights laws can protect nonresidents who proactively sought an actual New York City- or New York State-based job opportunity.

Shiber’s proposed amended complaint alleges that analysts who began working with her in July 2020 now work from Centerview’s New York City office and that, if she had remained employed, she would have been expected to work there. A Centerview partner provided testimony supporting that allegation.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, courts generally should allow amendments when justice requires. Leave may be denied for reasons such as futility, bad faith, undue delay, or unfair prejudice. An amendment is futile if the proposed complaint could not survive a motion challenging the court’s authority to hear the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the proposed New York claims were viable at the amendment stage. It found both a factual and legal change since the earlier dismissal. Factually, Shiber now alleged specific facts indicating that she would have worked in Centerview’s New York City office if she had not been terminated. Legally, the New York Court of Appeals had clarified that the impact requirement can be met when a nonresident is denied an actual New York-based job opportunity because of discrimination.

The court rejected Centerview’s argument that the earlier decision concerning termination claims controlled. It reasoned that Shiber had actively pursued New York employment and, according to her allegations, would have worked in New York but for COVID-19-related work restrictions and her termination. The court held that the proposed amended complaint would satisfy the impact requirement, so amendment would not be futile. This ruling addressed whether Shiber could reassert the New York claims; it did not decide whether Centerview ultimately discriminated against her.

The court also rejected Centerview’s argument that amendment would cause undue prejudice by requiring it to file another summary-judgment motion. The court noted that Shiber did not seek additional discovery, the existing record could apply to the New York claims, and no trial date had been set.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Shiber’s motion for leave to amend and directed her to file the third amended complaint by July 9, 2024. The court denied Centerview’s pending motion for summary judgment as moot, while allowing Centerview to renew that motion after the amended complaint was filed. The parties were directed to propose a revised briefing schedule and address whether additional discovery was needed after Centerview answered the amended complaint.