Moretti v. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC

Background

Gene Moretti sued Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC and several DARCARS-related defendants. He alleged that he worked as a salesperson at a Lexus dealership from approximately 2014 until August 2020, had an anxiety disorder, and was on employer-approved medical leave when he was terminated. He alleged that he was qualified, had performed well, and had told the defendants that he was ready and able to return to work. He also alleged that the DARCARS defendants later told him the termination was a miscommunication, but did not hire him after he applied for the position.

Moretti asserted disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The court noted that Moretti had abandoned previously asserted retaliation, sex-discrimination, and failure-to-rehire theories as separate claims, stating that the case was only about discrimination. Moretti had previously amended his complaint after an earlier round of this case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Claims Against Two Defendants

DARCARS of Mt. Kisco, Inc. and Mariam, Inc. argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Moretti had not named them in his charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court discussed an exception allowing an unnamed party to be sued when the unnamed and named parties have a sufficient “identity of interest.” It concluded that the exception did not apply here, noting that Moretti was represented by counsel when the administrative charge was filed and that his presentation of the relevant factors was not thorough.

The court dismissed DARCARS of Mt. Kisco, Inc. and Mariam, Inc. from the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction with prejudice.

ADA Discrimination Claim

The court applied the framework requiring a plaintiff to plausibly allege, among other things, that he had a disability covered by the ADA and suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability. The court had previously found that Moretti’s allegation of a diagnosed anxiety disorder requiring medical leave was not enough, by itself, to show that the condition substantially limited a major life activity.

Although the Second Amended Complaint added allegations of severe fatigue, sleep trouble, difficulty concentrating and remembering, worrying, shortness of breath, brain fog, chest flutters, and related symptoms, the court found the allegations still insufficient. In particular, Moretti did not allege facts showing how long his condition lasted or was expected to last. The court therefore dismissed his ADA discrimination claim concerning his termination for failure to adequately allege that he had a disability covered by the ADA.

Perceived-Disability Claim

The court also dismissed Moretti’s claim that the defendants treated him as having a disability. Moretti argued that the defendants regarded him as disabled because they terminated him even though he said he was ready and able to work. The court found that he did not provide enough facts showing that the defendants perceived him as having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.

Failure-to-Accommodate Claim

Moretti claimed that the defendants failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and failed to participate in the required discussion about possible accommodations. The court dismissed this claim because Moretti had not adequately alleged that he had a qualifying disability and had not clearly alleged that he requested an accommodation. The court also noted that the complaint repeatedly alleged that he was ready, willing, and able to perform his full duties with or without an accommodation.

New York Claims and Leave to Amend

After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL claims and dismissed them. The conclusion states that the remaining claims in the Second Amended Complaint were dismissed in their entirety without prejudice.

Judge Roman granted Moretti leave to file a Third Amended Complaint against the remaining defendants by September 22, 2025. The new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the Second Amended Complaint. If Moretti did not file it on time, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice and the case would be deemed terminated.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. DARCARS of Mt. Kisco, Inc. and Mariam, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC, DARCARS Lexus of Mount Kisco, DARCARS of Kisco Avenue, Inc., and DARCARS Automotive Group remained in the action, subject to Moretti’s opportunity to file a Third Amended Complaint.