Shin v. NBC Universal Media, LLC

Background

Jennifer Shin, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NBC Universal Media, LLC and Jeffrey Pinard in his individual and professional capacities. Shin alleged that NBCUniversal and Pinard discriminated against her because of her gender, retaliated after she complained, treated her unfavorably because of medical absences, failed to notify her about potential Family and Medical Leave Act rights, and defamed her. Her amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, New York City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, and New York common law.

Shin worked for NBCUniversal from February 2018 through November 2019 and alleged that Pinard and later Mae Ibera imposed unequal expectations, criticized her work, reduced her responsibilities, and reacted negatively to her medical absences. She alleged that she complained about gender discrimination to human resources on October 16, 2018, informed NBCUniversal about medical appointments and an urgent surgery, and was terminated on November 15, 2019.

Shin filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge on September 11, 2020, according to the complaint. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a dismissal and notice of the right to sue on September 14, 2023. Shin filed this lawsuit on December 15, 2023, and amended her complaint on June 11, 2024. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Timeliness and Sufficiency of the Claims

The court held that Shin’s Title VII claims were time-barred. Because her termination was the latest alleged discriminatory act, she had 300 days from November 15, 2019, to file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge. The court treated September 10, 2020, as the deadline and concluded that the September 11, 2020 charge was one day late. New York pandemic executive orders did not extend this federal deadline. The court also rejected equitable tolling, an exception that can extend a deadline in extraordinary circumstances, because Shin did not identify diligent efforts during the relevant period or circumstances that prevented timely filing.

The court held that the Family and Medical Leave Act claim was presumptively untimely. Even assuming the alleged violation was willful, the latest filing date would have been November 15, 2022, while Shin filed suit on December 15, 2023. The court rejected her equitable-tolling arguments based on her lack of legal knowledge, efforts to obtain counsel, alleged harassment, and the defendants’ alleged failure to explain her leave rights.

The court held that the defamation claims were time-barred. New York applies a one-year limitations period to defamation claims, extended here by 228 days under pandemic-related executive orders. Shin identified performance reviews and statements about her attendance and work, but the complaint indicated that the statements occurred no later than her November 15, 2019 termination. She filed suit more than four years later.

The court concluded that the gender-based discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law were timely because the limitations period was tolled while Shin’s related Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge was pending. However, claims unrelated to gender discrimination—including disability-related and sick-leave claims—were time-barred because the charge did not toll those claims. The court also held that the sick-leave claim was untimely regardless of whether Shin intended to invoke disability-retaliation provisions or New York City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act.

The court held that Shin’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 failed both on pleading grounds and because they were untimely. The complaint did not adequately allege an agreement or tacit understanding to discriminate, as required for a conspiracy claim under Section 1985(3). The Section 1986 claim also failed because it depended on a valid Section 1985 claim. In addition, the applicable limitations periods had expired.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case—over the remaining state and city gender-discrimination and retaliation claims. The court emphasized that the case was at an early stage and that discovery had not begun.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Shin requested permission to amend her complaint. The court concluded that amendment was not necessarily futile because additional facts might support equitable tolling. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Shin leave to amend only to add allegations supporting equitable tolling.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. Shin may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the opinion, by March 10, 2025, and may amend only for the limited equitable-tolling purpose. If she does not do so, the court stated that the Clerk will be directed to close the case.