Velez v. Girraphic LLC

Background

Anthony Velez sued Girraphic LLC, his former employer. He alleged that he worked for Girraphic from June 10, 2019, until March 6, 2020, as a Senior Real Time Developer. According to the complaint, Velez became seriously ill in February 2020, missed work, and experienced respiratory symptoms that might have resulted from COVID-19. He alleged that Girraphic knew about his illness, became angry about his absences and his efforts to discuss COVID-19 precautions, and terminated him or treated his departure as a resignation.

Velez asserted five claims under the New York City Human Rights Law involving disability discrimination, perceived-disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in a cooperative discussion about accommodation, and retaliation. He also asserted six contract and New York wage-law claims involving unpaid wages, notice pay, unused annual leave, and wage statements.

Girraphic’s jurisdictional and dismissal arguments

Girraphic argued that the court lacked diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. The court rejected that argument. Velez alleged emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, reputational harm, and requests for compensatory and punitive damages. The court concluded that Girraphic had not shown to a legal certainty that Velez could not recover more than $75,000.

Girraphic also moved to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim. For purposes of that motion, the court had to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in Velez’s favor. The court concluded that Velez plausibly alleged that he had a respiratory impairment covered by the New York City Human Rights Law, that Girraphic knew or perceived that he had a disability, and that the disability or his requests for leave and other accommodations contributed to the employment action.

The court also concluded that Velez plausibly alleged accommodation and retaliation claims. His alleged accommodation requests included medical leave, time away for a doctor’s appointment, and working from home. The court explained that the fact that Velez took time off did not by itself defeat his accommodation claims, and that an employer may have accommodation duties when it knows or should have known that an employee has a disability. The court rejected Girraphic’s argument that the disability claims were duplicative, allowing Velez to proceed under both disability and perceived-disability theories.

The court likewise declined to dismiss Velez’s contract and wage claims. Whether Velez resigned or was terminated for cause was a disputed factual issue. The court stated that Velez did not have to prove his claims at the dismissal stage and that Girraphic’s assertions about unused vacation and online wage statements did not establish that Velez had failed to state a claim.

Summary judgment

Girraphic also requested summary judgment, which is a ruling that a party wins without a trial because no genuine dispute of important fact exists. The court denied that request. The parties had agreed to postpone discovery, the record showed substantial factual disagreements, and Girraphic had not shown that this was the rare case in which summary judgment should be granted before the parties had an opportunity to conduct discovery.

Velez’s request for costs and fees

Velez sought costs and attorney’s fees under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Girraphic improperly refused to waive formal service of process through its attorney, Barry Janay. The court denied the request. It explained that service on an attorney who is not authorized to accept service for the client is ineffective, and Velez presented no facts showing that Janay was authorized to accept service for Girraphic. Girraphic asserted that Janay had been retained for severance negotiations, not as an authorized service agent.

Disposition

The court denied Girraphic’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in its entirety and denied Velez’s motion for costs and fees in its entirety. The court directed the parties to submit an updated case-management plan by May 17, 2021, leaving the case pending at that stage.