Calise v. Casa Redimix Concrete Corporation

Background

Brian Calise worked as a cement truck driver for Casa Redimix Concrete Corporation from March 2017 until July 9, 2019. He alleged that he had opioid addiction and used Suboxone, and that Casa knew about his use. On July 9, 2019, after he was accused of a slight accident involving a parked car, Casa required him to provide prescription-drug records. The complaint alleged that, after the records showed Suboxone use, Casa’s president, safety manager, and a union shop steward discussed his employment and that Calise was fired.

Calise brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law for disability discrimination and retaliation. He also brought a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The motion addressed only his post-employment retaliation claims under the three disability-discrimination statutes, and only to the extent they relied on an August 30, 2019 letter from or on behalf of Casa.

Casa’s Arguments

Casa argued that the letter was a statement made during compromise negotiations and therefore could not support Calise’s claims under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Casa also argued that the letter was not a retaliatory act and, because it was sent after Calise’s termination, could not be an adverse employment action supporting retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New York State Human Rights Law.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that deciding whether the letter was a settlement communication was premature because the letter lacked an offer to settle or stated settlement terms, and determining its status would require considering the surrounding events. The court also explained that even compromise evidence may be admissible for a purpose other than proving or disproving the validity or amount of the claim involved in the compromise. Calise alleged that Casa used the letter as part of a retaliatory campaign, which was a different purpose from proving the underlying discrimination claim.

The court further held that Calise’s retaliation claims were not based only on the letter. The complaint alleged a series of retaliatory acts, including Casa’s alleged efforts to prevent Calise from obtaining work with Tec Crete Ready Mix LLC and City Ready Mix Corporation after he complained of discrimination. The court stated that interfering with future employment opportunities, including blacklisting a former employee, can qualify as an adverse employment action.

For retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, the complaint had to plausibly allege protected activity, the employer’s knowledge of that activity, an adverse employment action, and a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage. It also concluded that the complaint necessarily stated a viable retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, which provides broader protection.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Casa’s partial motion to dismiss. The court directed that the case move forward and ordered the clerk to close the pending motions at docket numbers 28 and 35. The opinion did not resolve the ultimate merits of Calise’s retaliation claims.