Harvey v. Business Integrity Commission
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-00924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harvey v. Business Integrity Commission, Judge Clarke adopted a recommendation denying dismissal of FMLA retaliation and granting dismissal of other claims, allowing repleading.
Alexis F. Harvey’s FMLA-retaliation claim remains pending under the order, while Harvey’s other claims were subject to the granted portion of the motion with permission to replead. The order also affects the Business Integrity Commission and the other named defendants.
What happened
Alexis F. Harvey sued the Business Integrity Commission and several named defendants. A magistrate judge reviewed the defendants’ motion to dismiss and recommended different results for different claims.
The recommendation advised denying the motion as to Harvey’s claim that the defendants retaliated against Harvey under the Family and Medical Leave Act. It recommended granting the motion as to Harvey’s other claims, while allowing Harvey to replead those claims.
No party objected or requested more time to object. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke reviewed the recommendation and adopted it in its entirety, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail the order to Harvey.
The detailed version
- Harvey v. Business Integrity Commission · No. 1:24-cv-00924
- Clarke
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
Alexis F. Harvey brought claims against the Business Integrity Commission, Cindy Haskins, David A. Feldman, Elizabeth Crotty, David Mandell, and Tetiana Geletei. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ricardo for a Report and Recommendation, which is a magistrate judge’s proposed decision for the district judge to review.
Report and Recommendation
Filed on May 23, 2025, the Report and Recommendation recommended that the motion be denied as to Harvey’s claim for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. It recommended that the motion be granted as to Harvey’s other claims, while allowing Harvey to replead those claims.
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections were filed, and no party requested an extension. The court therefore stated that the parties had waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Even so, the court independently reviewed the motion and the recommendation and found the recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Thus, the motion to dismiss was denied as to the FMLA-retaliation claim and granted as to Harvey’s other claims, with permission to replead those claims. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed as ECF No. 28 and mail a copy of the order to Harvey.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.