Zam v. Mizuho Americas Services, LLC

Background

Gabrielle Zam sued Mizuho Americas Services LLC, Cheryl Benoit, and Steven Gatto. She asserted disability-discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Zam alleged that she had tongue cancer in 2018 and, after treatment and partial removal of her tongue, had difficulty speaking clearly and projecting her voice and needed to rinse her mouth frequently. She worked remotely for Mizuho beginning in May 2020. After Mizuho announced a return-to-office policy in 2022, her oncologist recommended remote work as she prepared to work in person, and Zam requested an accommodation. Mizuho approved the accommodation in October 2022.

Zam alleged that managers publicly questioned her accommodation and whether it was for her or for a family member. She also alleged that Benoit, who became her supervisor, questioned whether she intended to extend the accommodation indefinitely, criticized her speaking volume and clarity during a performance review, did not renew the accommodation in July 2023, and later terminated her employment. Zam alleged that she requested FMLA leave on September 28, 2023, and was terminated on October 6, 2023.

Legal standard

The court evaluated Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff.

FMLA retaliation claim against Gatto

The court dismissed Zam’s FMLA retaliation claim against Gatto with prejudice. For an individual employee to qualify as an employer under the FMLA, the employee must have acted in the employer’s interest and had relevant control or responsibility over the employee’s work or FMLA rights. The court held that Zam did not allege facts showing that Gatto knew about her FMLA request, controlled her ability to receive or use FMLA benefits, or participated in her termination.

The court rejected Zam’s argument that Gatto’s supervisory position and the company’s chain of command established his knowledge. The complaint alleged that Zam emailed Benoit and an HR employee about the leave request, not Gatto, and did not allege an interaction between Zam and Gatto after their April 2023 conversation. The court therefore dismissed the FMLA retaliation claim as to Gatto.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court held that Zam plausibly stated disability-discrimination claims against Mizuho under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. At the pleading stage, she needed only to provide minimal factual support for an inference that disability-related bias motivated an adverse employment action.

The court found that allegations about Benoit could support that inference. Benoit was Zam’s supervisor and the person who terminated her employment. The alleged comments about extending the accommodation, criticism of Zam’s speaking ability, forwarding of the work-from-home policy directly to Zam, and other conduct occurred close enough to the termination and were sufficiently connected to her disability and accommodation to allow the claims to proceed.

The court also held that Zam stated disability-discrimination claims against Benoit under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Those laws permit individual liability under an aiding-and-abetting theory when an employee actually participates in discriminatory conduct. The court dismissed the NYSHRL and NYCHRL disability-discrimination claims as to Gatto because Zam did not allege enough facts connecting him to her termination or the alleged discriminatory conduct.

Failure-to-accommodate claims

The court allowed Zam’s failure-to-accommodate claims against Mizuho and Benoit under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL to proceed. A failure-to-accommodate claim alleges that an employer did not make a reasonable adjustment for a known disability even though the adjustment was needed to perform essential job duties.

Zam alleged that remote work was necessary for her to prepare for and participate in lengthy work conversations because of her difficulty speaking and need to rinse her mouth. She also alleged that Benoit did not approve the renewal of her accommodation in July 2023 and that the accommodation file was then placed in inactive status. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the dismissal stage, even though Defendants argued that Zam continued working remotely and that remote work was not necessary.

The court dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim as to Gatto because the complaint did not allege that he had a role in approving or denying Zam’s accommodation requests.

Request to amend

The court denied Zam’s request for leave to file a third amended complaint. Zam had already amended her complaint, had not shown good cause for seeking another amendment after the scheduling-order deadline, and did not identify additional facts she would add. The court also concluded that another amendment would likely be futile as to the dismissed claims against Gatto.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Steven Gatto was dismissed from the case. The court denied Zam’s request for leave to file a third amended complaint. The opinion does not dismiss the disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims against Mizuho and Benoit at this stage.