Lally v. USA
Kaitlin Lally v. Klick USA, Inc. d/b/a Klick Health, Ari Schaefer, Alexander Leavitt, Meghan Jones, Catherine MacInnis, and John Doe Nos. 1-2
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-10293
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
Lally v. Klick USA, Inc.; Judge Vyskocil denied without prejudice Lally’s motion to strike two defenses concerning alleged post-termination conduct.
Kaitlin Lally and the defendants in the employment lawsuit, including Klick USA, Inc. d/b/a Klick Health and the individual defendants.
What happened
Kaitlin Lally sued Klick USA, Inc., several employees, and two unidentified defendants, alleging violations of disability and leave laws and state law. Defendants responded that Lally had violated her employment agreement after termination by contacting Klick clients and making disparaging comments about Klick.
Lally asked the court to remove those two defenses from the defendants’ answer. She argued that the defenses lacked enough factual and legal support and would create added discovery and trial costs.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Lally’s motion to strike without prejudice. The court found that factual and legal questions might allow the defenses to succeed and that Lally had shown no specific, non-speculative prejudice from allowing them to remain in the case.
The detailed version
- Lally v. USA · No. 1:23-cv-10293
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
Kaitlin Lally brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and state law against Klick USA, Inc. d/b/a Klick Health and several individuals. Lally alleged that she had a disability, took approved time off to manage it, and was terminated after requesting additional leave. The court had previously partially granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, after which defendants filed an answer.
The answer included a Seventh Affirmative Defense alleging that Lally violated her employment agreement after termination by contacting one or more Klick clients. The Eighth Affirmative Defense alleged that she violated the agreement by making disparaging or derogatory comments about Klick. Lally moved to strike both defenses under Rule 12(f), which permits a court to remove an insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading.
The Court’s Analysis
The court explained that motions to strike affirmative defenses are disfavored and require a demanding showing. At this stage, a defense should remain if there is any factual question that might allow it to meet the plausibility standard, any legal question that might allow it to succeed, and no sufficient showing of prejudice to the plaintiff.
The court held that factual questions might support the defenses because they concerned Lally’s private conduct after termination, facts to which defendants allegedly did not yet have ready access. The court also held that a legal question remained about whether the after-acquired evidence doctrine could apply to post-termination misconduct. That doctrine can limit an employee’s remedies based on misconduct discovered after termination, but the court noted that the Second Circuit had not decided whether it applies to misconduct occurring after termination. The court declined to resolve that unsettled legal issue at the pleading stage.
The court further concluded that the defenses were proper affirmative defenses because, if successful, they could limit the remedies Lally sought. It rejected Lally’s claim of prejudice because her concerns about additional discovery were speculative and not quantified.
Disposition
The court ordered that Lally’s motion to strike the Seventh and Eighth Affirmative Defenses was DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 54. The opinion did not decide whether the defenses will ultimately succeed.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.