Rivera v. Target Corporation

Background

Alondra Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer, sued her former employer, Target Corporation and its division Roundel, along with her former supervisor, Quinn Nelson, and several Human Resources employees. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Rivera alleged that Nelson criticized her qualifications and performance, increased her workload, and treated her in a discriminatory and hostile manner. She complained to Human Resources, was placed on a performance improvement plan, took leave, sought to return in a position away from Nelson, and was terminated after Target required her to return to her original position. She also alleged that Target later gave inaccurate information about her unemployment benefits and sent her bills related to health benefits.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim. Rivera styled her opposition as a request for summary judgment, but the court treated it only as an opposition to the dismissal motion because discovery had not occurred. The court also denied Rivera’s request to file that opposition under seal.

Title VII claim

The court held that Rivera filed her Title VII lawsuit one day beyond the 90-day period after receiving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice of the right to sue. Rivera argued that the deadline should be extended because the notice arrived in the evening and because the alleged discrimination continued after the notice. The court rejected both arguments. It found no exceptional circumstance supporting an extension of the deadline and held that the continuing-violation theory did not extend the deadline for filing suit after receipt of the notice. The court dismissed the Title VII claim as untimely.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Rivera’s charge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation, but did not specifically allege disability discrimination. The court held that her disability claim—based on an alleged failure to accommodate her anxiety by reassigning her—was not reasonably related to the race-discrimination allegations in her charge. Because Rivera did not first present the disability claim to the agency, the court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Family and Medical Leave Act claims

The court dismissed Rivera’s Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim because her complaint alleged that she received all the leave to which she was entitled. The email Nelson sent during her leave and the performance evaluation placed in her file did not, as alleged, interfere with her ability to take leave.

The court also dismissed Rivera’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. Although termination can be an adverse employment action and Target did not dispute that Rivera exercised protected rights or was qualified for her position, the court found that the complaint did not plausibly suggest retaliatory intent. The timing between her leave and termination was too long or unclear, she identified no similarly situated employee who was treated differently, and her allegations that Human Resources encouraged her to return to work undermined an inference of retaliation. The court also found that her post-termination allegations did not support a retaliation claim.

Leave to amend

The court denied Rivera leave to amend the Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act claims because amendment would be futile: the Title VII claim was untimely and the Americans with Disabilities Act claim was unexhausted. Because the Family and Medical Leave Act claims were dismissed for insufficient factual allegations, Rivera may move for leave to amend them by filing a proposed amended complaint within four weeks of the opinion and order. She may instead notify the court that she does not plan to amend, after which final judgment would be entered and her right to appeal would arise.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing all federal-law claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rivera’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court noted that Rivera could also seek to amend her complaint to allege a basis for federal diversity jurisdiction.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Rivera’s motion to file her opposition under seal. It directed the clerk to close the motions and lift the seal, but not to enter a judgment of dismissal or close the case at that stage.