Medina v. AAM15 Management LLC

Background

Christina Medina sued AAM 15 Management LLC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged that the company discriminated against her because she was pregnant, failed to provide pregnancy-related accommodations, and retaliated against her.

Medina worked at two hotels operated by AAM 15 Management LLC. She alleged that, during her pregnancy, she requested job-protected time off to recover from childbirth and later requested a reduced schedule or other arrangement so she would not have to work alone during a Friday night shift. The company allegedly did not provide those accommodations. It laid her off during the COVID-19 pandemic, told her she would be among the first employees recalled, but did not recall her while recalling or hiring other front desk workers. After Medina filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging pregnancy discrimination, she alleged that the company told her for the first time that it had terminated her employment.

The company filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asked whether they plausibly stated claims for relief. The motion challenged only Medina’s retaliation claims, not her other discrimination or accommodation claims.

Retaliation Based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge

The court held that filing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge was protected activity under both Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Medina alleged that she filed the charge on April 20, 2021, and that the company disclosed her termination about two months later. The court concluded that this timing, together with her allegations that the company had previously treated her as laid off and eligible for recall, plausibly supported a causal connection between the charge and the termination.

The court rejected the company’s argument that Medina had already been terminated when she filed the charge. It relied on the additional allegations in her amended complaint that she believed she remained on furlough when she filed the charge and learned of the termination only later through the company’s position statement. The court also declined to treat potentially imprecise wording in Medina’s earlier, self-represented Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing as conclusive against her at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Retaliation Based on Accommodation Requests

The court ruled that, under the New York State Human Rights Law, a request for a reasonable accommodation by itself is not protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim. The court followed decisions from New York’s intermediate appellate courts and found that Medina had not shown persuasive evidence that New York’s highest court would reach a different result. The court therefore granted the motion to the extent Medina’s New York retaliation claim relied only on her accommodation requests.

The court separately considered Medina’s January 22, 2020 email stating that she might take a short vacation after giving birth and then return one day per week to keep her job. Although complaints opposing the denial of an accommodation can constitute protected activity under New York law, the court found that this email was too ambiguous. It expressed concern about keeping her position but did not tell the company that she believed it was engaging in unlawful discrimination. The court therefore granted the motion to the extent Medina relied on that email as protected activity.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part AAM 15 Management LLC’s partial motion to dismiss. Medina’s Title VII retaliation claim and her New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim based on filing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge remain alive. She may not proceed on the New York retaliation claim insofar as it is based only on requesting a reasonable accommodation or on the January 22 email. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and scheduled a telephonic conference for October 25, 2024.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered the order on September 26, 2024.