McKenna v. Santander Investment Securities, Inc.

Background

Erin McKenna worked as a salesperson on Santander Investment Securities, Inc.’s Fixed Income sales desk. She alleged that Santander Investment Securities, Santander Holdings USA, Inc., and Omar Kariuki failed to accommodate medical restrictions related to her 2019 high-risk pregnancy, discriminated against her because of her pregnancies and maternity leave, and retaliated against her. Her claims arose under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. She also asserted aiding-and-abetting claims against Kariuki under New York State and New York City law.

McKenna alleged that Santander refused to let her work remotely or provide transportation during her 2019 pregnancy, did not fully restore her client accounts after maternity leave, reduced her bonuses, and terminated her employment in November 2020. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that no reasonable jury could find for McKenna on any claim.

Statutes of Limitations

The court held that McKenna’s federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII were subject to a 300-day filing period because she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the relevant New York agency. Acts before April 10, 2020 generally fell outside that period. The court therefore held that the Americans with Disabilities Act claim concerning the 2019 pregnancy was untimely, as were Title VII claims concerning the 2019 account reassignment and the 2018 and 2019 bonuses. The Title VII claim concerning McKenna’s termination was timely. The court held that all of McKenna’s claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law were timely.

Pregnancy-Related Disability Claims

The court granted summary judgment on McKenna’s disability-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Americans with Disabilities Act claim was already time-barred. The court stated that McKenna had presented evidence that her pregnancy-related medical complications could qualify as a disability under the state and city laws. But it concluded that she had not shown that the defendants refused to provide a reasonable accommodation.

McKenna’s doctor’s March 21, 2019 certification stated that she could work four days per week if provided transportation. Human Resources asked about other possible accommodations, including a nearby Santander branch. On April 3, McKenna wrote that she believed she could commute and return to her regular schedule. The court treated that response as withdrawing her accommodation request. Although McKenna later referred to an April 24 medical note recommending reduced commuting, the court found no evidence that she had provided that note to Santander or that the defendants refused a renewed accommodation request.

Pregnancy Discrimination

The court granted summary judgment on all claims arising from McKenna’s 2020 pregnancy. Santander had begun planning a restructuring that identified McKenna for termination before she became pregnant and before she told Santander about the pregnancy. The court concluded that McKenna had identified no evidence that her 2020 pregnancy played any role in the termination decision.

For the 2019 pregnancy, the court held that the Title VII claim was time-barred. It denied summary judgment on McKenna’s New York State and New York City pregnancy-discrimination claims. McKenna presented evidence that could support a finding that the defendants reduced her bonuses, failed to restore some accounts after maternity leave, and planned and carried out her termination because of her 2019 pregnancy or maternity leave. Although the defendants offered business reasons for those actions, the court held that disputed facts had to be resolved at trial.

Retaliation

The court dismissed McKenna’s federal retaliation claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act as time-barred. It allowed her New York State and New York City retaliation claims to proceed in part. The court found that McKenna’s April 5, 2019 email, which expressed concern that she could permanently lose accounts because of time off after having a baby, qualified as protected activity. It held that the alleged permanent reallocation of some accounts after her maternity leave was sufficiently connected to that email to create a jury question.

The court rejected McKenna’s contention that her earlier request to work from home was protected activity because she did not identify what she had said or show that she had complained about discrimination or unfair treatment. The court also concluded that the 2020 bonus and termination were too remote from the April 5 email to support retaliation claims without speculation. The court noted that the 2018 bonus could not support retaliation claims because it was decided and paid before the email.

Family and Medical Leave Act Claims

The court granted summary judgment on McKenna’s Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim. It found that she had identified no action denying or interfering with protected leave or another Family and Medical Leave Act benefit. The court characterized her account-reassignment theory as a retaliation claim rather than an interference claim.

The court denied summary judgment on the Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. It held that McKenna had presented evidence from which a jury could find that the defendants retaliated against her for absences from the workplace in 2019 by permanently reallocating accounts, reducing her 2019 bonus, and terminating her employment. The defendants’ stated business reasons created factual disputes for trial.

Aiding and Abetting

The court granted summary judgment to Kariuki on McKenna’s aiding-and-abetting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Because McKenna sued Kariuki personally for the alleged discrimination and retaliation, the court held that he could not also be liable for aiding and abetting his own alleged violations.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion in part. It granted summary judgment on the federal Title VII, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act interference claims identified in the conclusion; on the state and city disability claims; and on the aiding-and-abetting claims against Kariuki. The court stated that the following claims would proceed to trial: New York State and New York City discrimination claims concerning the 2019 pregnancy, New York State and New York City retaliation claims, and Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claims.