Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing and Finance, David Ward, and Lisa Lisa Savinon

Background

Maureen Ottoson worked for SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc. (SMBC) for approximately three months in 2012. She believed that a report incorrectly stating that she had agoraphobia and depression had been given to SMBC. On July 9, 2012, her lawyer sent SMBC a letter requesting her personnel file. The letter also stated that records suggesting Ottoson had a mental disability had led to disparate treatment and that she wanted to correct the perception that she was mentally disabled.

SMBC terminated Ottoson’s employment on August 1, 2012. The opinion states that Lamparello, David Ward, and Lisa Saviñon had decided to terminate her because of disruptive and harassing behavior toward Robert McCarthy, a consultant at SMBC. Ottoson then sued SMBC, Ward, and Saviñon, claiming disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Trial and Motion

Ottoson represented herself at a July 2019 jury trial. The jury found for the defendants on her ADA and NYCHRL discrimination claims and on her ADA retaliation claim. It found for Ottoson on her NYCHRL retaliation claim and held SMBC and Saviñon liable. The jury awarded her $21,250 in backpay.

SMBC and Saviñon moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. This motion asks the court to overturn a jury verdict when the evidence was legally insufficient to support it. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party who won the verdict, draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, and avoid weighing evidence or deciding which witnesses were credible.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants challenged two parts of the NYCHRL retaliation verdict. First, they argued that Ottoson had not engaged in protected activity. Under the NYCHRL, protected activity includes opposing conduct forbidden by the law, and the employer must be aware of that activity.

The court acknowledged that the July 9 letter focused on obtaining Ottoson’s personnel file and that the letter said she did not believe SMBC had created the allegedly false information. But the letter also referred to perceived mental disability, disparate treatment at SMBC, coworkers’ perceptions, and the need to correct the perception that Ottoson was mentally disabled. Applying the NYCHRL’s broad protection against retaliation, the court held that the jury could find that the letter constituted protected activity.

The defendants also argued that Ottoson lacked a good-faith, reasonable belief that SMBC was discriminating against her based on a perceived mental disability. The court noted that there was no evidence that the alleged report existed or had been provided to SMBC. It nevertheless concluded that trial testimony—including testimony that Saviñon called Ottoson “crazy” and “nuts,” and Ottoson’s testimony about comments describing her as mentally unstable, criminal, slow, stupid, dopey, not normal, and sick—could support the jury’s finding that her belief was reasonable when the letter was sent.

Second, the defendants argued that retaliation was not a motivating factor in Ottoson’s termination because the evidence showed she was fired for disrupting McCarthy. The court explained that the ADA requires retaliation to be the but-for cause of the adverse employment action, while the NYCHRL requires only that retaliation be one motivating factor. The jury’s different results on the ADA and NYCHRL retaliation claims were therefore legally possible. Although the evidence of Ottoson’s disruptive behavior was strong, the court held that a reasonable jury could still find that retaliation was one motivating factor in her termination.

Ruling and Remaining Matters

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court did not immediately enter judgment because two matters remained: fees and costs connected to a prior sanctions ruling against Ottoson for destruction of evidence, and Ottoson’s request for $17,500 in attorney’s fees. The court ordered submissions and responses within the specified 21-day periods, directed Ottoson’s two prior lawyers to provide information about their retainers and any charging lien, and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 206.