Acosta v. The New York Times Company
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01119
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Acosta v. The New York Times Company, Judge Cronan ordered Acosta to respond to defendants’ stay request but did not decide it.
Ara Acosta and defendants The New York Times Company d/b/a The New York Times and Pamela Dryfoos; the order required Acosta to respond to the defendants’ request to pause the case.
What happened
Ara Acosta v. The New York Times Company concerns defendants’ request to pause the case. The defendants said Acosta had filed a disability-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission based on the same facts and planned to add a federal disability claim after receiving permission to sue.
The defendants argued that pausing the case would avoid duplicate filings and unnecessary litigation. Acosta’s lawyer did not agree to the pause, partly because it was unclear when the permission-to-sue notice would arrive. The court did not decide whether to grant the requested stay.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered Acosta to file a response by April 21, 2025, addressing whether a stay was warranted and whether she intended to amend her complaint after receiving the notice.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:25-cv-01119
- John Cronan
- Apr. 17, 2025
Background
According to defendants’ letter, Acosta filed the complaint on February 7, 2025. The letter says the complaint asserted disability-discrimination claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws and a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The defendants are The New York Times Company doing business as The New York Times and Pamela Dryfoos.
The defendants stated that Acosta later filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Americans with Disabilities Act based on the same facts. They also said Acosta’s lawyer confirmed her intention to amend the federal complaint to add an Americans with Disabilities Act claim after receiving a notice of the right to sue, which the letter described as required before filing that claim.
Request for a Stay
The defendants asked the court to pause all proceedings until 30 days after Acosta amended the complaint. They argued that responding to the existing complaint before an expected amendment would create duplicative pleadings and motion practice, waste resources, and potentially result in parallel litigation. Acosta’s lawyer did not consent to the requested stay, citing uncertainty about how long it would take to receive the notice of the right to sue.
Court’s Order
Judge John P. Cronan did not grant or deny the requested stay in this order. Instead, the court ordered Acosta to respond by April 21, 2025, addressing whether a stay was warranted in light of her April 13, 2025, charge and whether she intended to amend the complaint after receiving a notice of the right to sue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.