Catania v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

Jessica Catania sued NYU Langone Health System under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She alleged that NYU interfered with her approved intermittent FMLA leave to care for her father and retaliated against her for taking that leave. She claimed that she was required to respond to calls and emails, remain available for meetings, and help prepare a presentation while on leave. She also alleged that her supervisor, Kimberly Tuccillo, criticized and belittled her because of her leave and that these actions forced her to resign.

Catania’s resignation letter stated that her last day would be December 17, 2021, but NYU accepted the resignation effective immediately and paid her through the end of the proposed notice period. NYU moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court first addressed constructive discharge, which occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. The court held that Catania did not plausibly allege either required element: that NYU deliberately intended to create intolerable conditions, or that the conditions were objectively intolerable enough to compel a reasonable person to resign. The alleged criticism, condescending remarks, micromanagement, and denial of non-FMLA paid time off did not meet that demanding standard. The court therefore granted NYU’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to the constructive-discharge claim.

The court then concluded that, without a viable constructive-discharge claim, Catania had not stated another actionable FMLA claim. Regarding interference, the court noted that Catania received paid time for each FMLA-related absence and determined that the alleged calls, emails, meetings, and presentation work did not plausibly show interference with her FMLA rights. Regarding retaliation, the court found that she did not allege an adverse employment action likely to discourage a reasonable worker from exercising FMLA rights. The court also found that she could not obtain reinstatement or an injunction as a former employee based on the allegations presented.

The court separately held that, even if Catania had stated an FMLA claim, the FMLA does not authorize damages for pain and suffering or emotional distress, punitive damages, or nominal damages. The court stated that the statute allows specified damages, including actual monetary losses such as salary and benefits and certain liquidated damages.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted NYU Langone’s motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Because the court found it conceivable that Catania could address the pleading deficiencies with additional facts, it granted her leave to amend the complaint within 30 days, provided she had a good-faith basis to do so. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions.