Fitzgerald v. The We Company

Background

Alexandria Fitzgerald sued WeWork and David Stiles, alleging gender and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged that WeWork violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating her employment.

The court noted that the caption incorrectly called Fitzgerald’s employer “The We Company d/b/a WeWork” and stated that the correct name was “We Work Management LLC.” Fitzgerald had withdrawn her claims against another defendant, Danny Duong, and had dismissed those claims with prejudice by stipulation.

Fitzgerald began working for WeWork on March 25, 2019. In May 2019, she reported that Stiles made sexually suggestive comments during a work trip, touched her face with a napkin, and sent her text messages asking to cuddle. WeWork investigated, found that Stiles had acted inappropriately and violated its workplace harassment policy, and gave him a final written warning. Fitzgerald acknowledged that Stiles did not direct further inappropriate behavior toward her after the warning, although she described some later inappropriate jokes and other conduct.

Fitzgerald began attending weekday therapy appointments for anxiety in June 2019. She generally told supervisors that she would be away for an appointment and would return afterward. The record did not show that supervisors prevented her from attending appointments, required her to cancel a specific appointment, or made disparaging comments about her therapy.

In April 2020, WeWork conducted a reduction in force that eliminated about 300 positions, including all remaining United States-based employees in Fitzgerald’s role. The decision-makers stated that they were seeking employees with stronger experience in budgeting, contracting, construction, and related technical work. They concluded that Fitzgerald lacked the construction-related technical knowledge needed for the reorganized business.

Court’s analysis

Gender discrimination and hostile work environment. The court held that Stiles’s conduct, although vulgar and inappropriate, was an isolated incident and was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. Fitzgerald did not provide admissible evidence showing that later conduct was continuous and concerted enough to alter her working conditions.

The court also rejected Fitzgerald’s Title VII discriminatory-discharge claim. She did not identify a similarly situated male employee who received more favorable treatment. The male employee who survived the reduction in force was a manager in a more senior role, and the reduction in force eliminated all United States-based employees in Fitzgerald’s role. The court further found that the small group of employees considered for termination did not provide meaningful statistical evidence of gender discrimination. Even assuming Fitzgerald had established an initial discrimination case, the court found that WeWork offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination and that Fitzgerald offered no evidence showing those reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

The court likewise granted summary judgment on Fitzgerald’s Title VII retaliation claim. It found that she had not shown a sufficient causal connection between her complaints about Stiles and her termination. The court stated that the reduction in force provided a legitimate reason for the termination and that Fitzgerald offered no evidence that her complaint was the necessary cause of the decision. The court also concluded that the title change during an earlier reorganization was not a materially adverse employment action because her salary, benefits, and responsibilities did not materially change.

Disability discrimination. The court granted summary judgment on Fitzgerald’s ADA claims for discriminatory discharge, retaliation, and hostile work environment. To qualify as a disability under the ADA, a plaintiff must show an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Fitzgerald said that anxiety impaired her sleeping and cognitive functions, but the court found her evidence too vague and conclusory to create a factual dispute about substantial limitations. Because she had not shown that she was disabled within the ADA’s definition, the court did not allow those claims to proceed.

FMLA interference. The court granted summary judgment on Fitzgerald’s FMLA interference claim. Fitzgerald did not become eligible for FMLA leave until March 25, 2020, one year after she began working for WeWork. The court also found that she did not request FMLA leave or provide enough information to notify WeWork that she sought such leave. Instead, the evidence showed that she sought flexibility to attend therapy appointments during the workday and then return to work. The court further found no evidence that WeWork prevented or discouraged her from attending appointments after she became eligible for FMLA leave.

FMLA retaliation. The court granted summary judgment on Fitzgerald’s FMLA retaliation claim. It found that the record did not establish that she had exercised rights protected by the FMLA because she had not requested leave. She also identified no document or testimony showing that a decision-maker treated a need for FMLA leave as a negative factor in the termination decision. In addition, WeWork offered the reduction in force and the elimination of all United States-based employees in Fitzgerald’s role as a legitimate reason for her termination, and Fitzgerald did not show that reason was pretextual.

State-law claims and disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Fitzgerald’s remaining New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims. The court noted that those laws use different and more liberal standards than the federal claims. It therefore dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to renewal in state court.

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Fitzgerald’s Title VII, ADA, and FMLA claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice. It dismissed the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims without prejudice to renewal, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.