Kurtanidze v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.

Background

David Kurtanidze brought employment claims against his former employer, Mizuho Bank, Ltd., and Mizuho Americas Services LLC, which the court treated collectively as Mizuho. He asserted race-discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also asserted discrimination claims based on national origin, gender, caregiver status, and disability under the New York statutes; retaliation claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law; and a Family and Medical Leave Act claim alleging interference with his leave rights.

Mizuho moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Kurtanidze worked for Mizuho from December 2016 until April 6, 2021. The stated reasons for his termination were that his existing role had become redundant and that he lacked the skills needed for available positions. Before his termination, he had raised concerns involving his accent and treatment by Japanese managers, parental and family leave, carpal tunnel syndrome, and time off related to COVID-19.

Race and national-origin claims

The court analyzed the race and national-origin claims first under the New York City Human Rights Law, which it described as having the most permissive liability standard among the applicable laws. The court held that Kurtanidze had not produced admissible evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably conclude that Mizuho treated him less well because of his race or national origin.

The court found that several allegations were unsupported, withdrawn, or based only on speculation. Kurtanidze could not recall a manager telling him to become more like a Japanese employee. He also testified that he could not identify an explicit race-based statement by another manager. The coworker who replaced him as a meeting leader was not Japanese, and the record indicated that she was viewed as better able to lead the discussions. The court also found that the employees promoted over Kurtanidze were not suitable comparators on the evidence presented, and one of them was not Japanese.

The court further found that the evidence did not support claims based on exclusion from meetings, a contractor’s professional disagreement with Kurtanidze, or alleged promotion decisions. Regarding the termination, the court cited evidence that Mizuho considered Kurtanidze’s performance, including concerns about collaboration and disagreements with stakeholders, as well as the completion of projects and resulting staffing needs. Kurtanidze did not identify evidence showing that those reasons were a pretext for discrimination. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Mizuho on the race- and national-origin claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and § 1981.

Gender and caregiver-status claims

The court rejected Kurtanidze’s claims that Mizuho discriminated or retaliated against him because he was a man or a caregiver. The evidence showed that he took parental leave as a secondary caregiver and never asked Mizuho’s Human Resources or Benefits personnel whether he qualified as a primary caregiver. The court also noted that, under Mizuho’s policy, an employee who designated themselves as a secondary caregiver could not later change that designation to primary caregiver.

The court found no evidence that Mizuho denied Kurtanidze family or medical leave. When he asked about extended leave for family care, a benefits coordinator directed him to available procedures, but Kurtanidze never submitted a leave request or made a further inquiry about a leave of absence. He also retracted or could not support allegations that Mizuho contacted him during parental leave or assigned him less desirable work because he took that leave.

The court found that contemporaneous communications showed managers accommodating Kurtanidze’s family responsibilities. The court also held that the evidence did not support an inference that his termination was retaliation for taking parental leave. His parental leave occurred in June and July 2019, nearly two years before his April 2021 termination. Summary judgment was therefore granted to Mizuho on the gender- and caregiver-status discrimination claims and on the related retaliation claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Disability-related claims

Kurtanidze claimed that Mizuho failed to accommodate, discriminated against, and retaliated against him because of carpal tunnel syndrome and COVID-19-related illness or status.

For carpal tunnel syndrome, the court found that Kurtanidze’s requests were not denied. Although he initially recalled being told to handle physical therapy outside work hours, he later testified that his manager allowed him time to attend treatment. Mizuho also approved Kurtanidze’s request to pace his workload and take breaks while working remotely. After that approval, he did not again tell his supervisors that he needed a reduced workload or additional accommodation. He also did not inform Human Resources about his condition or request an accommodation through the company’s process.

For COVID-19, the court found that Mizuho had a policy allowing unlimited paid sick days during the relevant period and that managers approved Kurtanidze’s requests for time off. The court found no evidence that Mizuho denied a sick-leave request or a request to see a doctor. It also found that allegations that a manager threatened Kurtanidze’s job or required a positive COVID-19 test were contradicted by the stipulated facts.

The court further found no evidence that the manager who terminated Kurtanidze knew about his carpal tunnel syndrome or related accommodation requests. The court also found no evidence connecting his termination or work assignments to either asserted disability. It granted summary judgment to Mizuho on the disability accommodation and discrimination claims.

Family and Medical Leave Act interference and retaliation

Kurtanidze claimed that Mizuho interfered with his Family and Medical Leave Act rights by denying a request to take breaks for wrist pain. The court held that the request was approved, that working from home itself provided an accommodation, and that Kurtanidze never again raised the need for breaks or a reduced workload after the approval. Because he was not denied a benefit to which he was entitled, the court granted summary judgment to Mizuho on the interference claim.

The court also rejected the Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. The termination occurred about a year after Kurtanidze’s April 2020 accommodation request, and the court found no evidence that the termination was motivated by disability-related retaliation. It likewise granted summary judgment on the related New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claims because the requests for adjusted workload and sick leave were granted and the record did not support retaliatory motivation.

Disposition

The court granted Mizuho’s motion for summary judgment in full. The opinion states that this ruling resolved all of Kurtanidze’s claims in Mizuho’s favor.