Darwin v. Newburgh Operations, LLC

Background

Robin Darwin sued Newburgh Operations, LLC, doing business as Sapphire Nursing at Meadow Hill, and Tzvi Barax. She asserted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also asserted state-law aiding-and-abetting claims against Barax and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against all Defendants.

In a January 15, 2025, order, the court granted Defendants’ summary-judgment motion in part. It rejected Darwin’s claims based on the March 3, 2021, termination and held further briefing on claims concerning an alleged accelerated termination period from January 25, 2021, through March 3, 2021. The court also dismissed Darwin’s entire federal retaliation claim because the evidence did not meet the federal standard requiring an employer action serious enough to discourage a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity.

Court’s analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Viewing the evidence in Darwin’s favor, the court applied the standard from Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, under which a discrimination plaintiff must show some harm connected to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but need not show that the harm was significant, serious, or substantial.

The court found that Darwin’s references to anxiety after her termination, together with the alleged delay in receiving backpay following the January 25 termination letter, supported a permissible inference that she suffered harm. It therefore found a triable factual dispute on her federal discrimination claim. Because the court viewed the New York State and New York City standards as more lenient than the federal standard, it also found triable discrimination claims under those laws.

The court likewise found a triable dispute on Darwin’s failure-to-accommodate claims. Those claims were based on Defendants’ allegedly terminating her employment after she requested medical leave. The court also found a triable dispute on her New York State and New York City retaliation claims, which use a lower harm threshold than the federal retaliation standard. Finally, because the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims survived, and because the alleged conduct was at least partly based on Barax’s own conduct, the court found a triable dispute on the related aiding-and-abetting claims against Barax.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Darwin’s remaining claims for failure to accommodate under federal, state, and local law; discrimination under federal, state, and local law; retaliation under state and local law; and related aiding-and-abetting claims against Barax based on the alleged accelerated termination period.

The court stated that Defendants’ motion was granted as to Darwin’s entire federal retaliation claim and all other claims based on the March 3, 2021, termination. The order resolved docket entry no. 76. The court said it would refer the parties to mediation and required a joint status report by April 18, 2025, including Darwin’s statement about whether and to what extent she intended to continue prosecuting her claims.