DiNome v. Cordis Corporation

Background

Michelle DiNome sued Cordis US Corp., Cordis Corporation, Dennis Whalen, and David Hunt. She alleged hostile work environment, age and sex discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Her claims arose under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, New York Labor Law § 740, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. They challenged only Count V, the New York Labor Law retaliation claim, and Count VI, the claims that the defendants failed to accommodate her under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

DiNome alleged that she reported two types of conduct: Cordis’s practice of allowing employees to use medical devices on patients without adequate training, and a doctor’s alleged suggestion that Cordis donate $50,000 to an educational symposium in exchange for using Cordis devices. She also alleged that Whalen and others stopped supporting her, gave her a negative performance review, and terminated her after these events. DiNome further alleged that, after her father’s death, she experienced anxiety, depression, and other mental-health conditions that affected her ability to study for and pass a required examination.

New York whistleblower-retaliation claim

The court held that DiNome adequately alleged that she reported an activity Cordis itself engaged in that she believed posed a danger to public health or safety: permitting inadequately trained employees to use medical devices on patients. The court found that her allegations concerning the doctor’s alleged kickback scheme were different. The amended complaint did not explicitly allege that she reported Cordis’s participation in an unlawful scheme or that she believed Cordis was participating in one. Statements in her opposition brief could not add allegations missing from the amended complaint.

The court also found that DiNome plausibly alleged retaliatory conduct by Whalen. Her allegations that Whalen hired her, assigned her work, issued a disciplinary warning, may have had authority to fire her, and could offer her another position were enough at the pleading stage to treat him as an employer under the New York Labor Law. The alleged negative performance review and termination could qualify as adverse actions, although the allegation that another employee was rude to her, standing alone, might be only a minor workplace slight.

However, the court concluded that DiNome did not adequately plead a causal connection between her protected report about inadequate training and the alleged retaliation. She did not provide a specific date for the report, so the court could not determine whether the later actions occurred closely enough in time to support an inference of retaliation. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the New York Labor Law retaliation claim.

Failure-to-accommodate claims

For the Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the court held that DiNome did not allege enough facts to show that her anxiety, depression, or other mental-health conditions substantially limited a major life activity. Her allegations did not explain the severity of her condition or how it limited her ability to study for and take the required examination compared with most people. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the federal accommodation claim and did not decide the other elements of that claim.

The court applied broader definitions of disability under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law and assumed, for purposes of the motion, that DiNome adequately alleged a disability under those laws. But the court found that she did not allege that she requested an accommodation. Telling Whalen that she might seem distracted because her father had died, and telling Hunt that she had not completed an assignment because her father had collapsed, did not show that the defendants knew she had anxiety or depression or needed an accommodation. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the state and city accommodation claims.

Disposition

Judge Ramos granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss the amended complaint, without prejudice. The court permitted DiNome to file a second amended complaint by September 11, 2024, because it was not yet apparent that another amendment would be futile. The opinion does not state that the remaining claims were dismissed.