Germain v. Nielsen Co LLC

Background

Matthew Germain alleged that Nielsen recruited him in July 2021 for a position as Leader of U.S. Commercial Partnerships. During recruitment, Germain told Nielsen’s talent-acquisition manager, Nick Lesser, that serious health conditions prevented him from traveling during the COVID-19 pandemic. Germain alleged that Lesser repeatedly assured him that travel would not be required. Relying on those assurances, Germain left his job at 1010Data and began working for Nielsen in September 2021.

After Germain started, his supervisor, Julian Baldwin, told him that travel was expected. Germain later informed Baldwin that his cardiologist advised him to avoid travel and requested an accommodation exempting him from traveling from home for work. Nielsen’s human-resources officer did not respond to the request. Germain alleged that Nielsen then criticized his performance and terminated him in January 2022.

Nielsen moved to dismiss Germain’s claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and violations of the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Nielsen also argued that Germain had not properly completed the required process before suing under the disability law because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued his right-to-sue letter fewer than 180 days after he filed his charge.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

The court held that Germain adequately pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation. Under the applicable standard, he had to plausibly allege a material false statement, an intent to defraud, reasonable reliance, and resulting damage. The court found that the complaint identified the alleged false statements with sufficient detail: Lesser allegedly said repeatedly that the position would not require travel, while Baldwin later said that travel was expected.

The court also found that Germain plausibly alleged that the statements were made to persuade him to leave his prior job, that he relied on them in doing so, and that he suffered economic harm after leaving that job and being terminated from Nielsen. The court rejected Nielsen’s argument that the at-will employment doctrine barred the claim. It explained that Germain’s claim was based on being induced to leave his prior employment, not on a promise that Nielsen would employ him indefinitely or on a claim for wrongful termination.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claims

The court held that Germain properly exhausted the administrative process. It concluded that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may issue an early right-to-sue letter when a designated agency official determines that the agency probably cannot complete processing within 180 days. The court found that the governing statute did not clearly prohibit such letters and that the agency’s regulation allowing them was a reasonable interpretation of the statute. The court therefore treated Germain’s right-to-sue letter as valid.

The court also held that Germain adequately pleaded that he was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint identified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, cardiomyopathy, diabetes, and asthma, and alleged that these conditions made him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and prevented him from safely leaving home for work. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court found those allegations sufficient to plausibly show a disability.

The court further noted that Germain alleged he requested an accommodation and that Nielsen did not respond before criticizing his work and firing him. The court rejected Nielsen’s argument that an accommodation primarily benefiting the employee’s health was not required under the disability law.

New York State and City Claims

The court dismissed Germain’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Applying the impact test used in the court’s earlier decision, the court required Germain to allege that the discriminatory conduct had its impact in New York State or New York City, as applicable.

The complaint alleged that Germain lived in Danbury, Connecticut and had worked in Nielsen’s New York office for two days of presentations. The court found that these allegations showed, at most, a tangential connection to New York and did not allege that Germain worked or lived there. The court therefore granted Nielsen’s motion to dismiss those claims.

Disposition

The court stated that Nielsen’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It denied the motion as to Germain’s fraudulent misrepresentation and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. It granted the motion without prejudice as to the New York State and New York City claims, meaning the dismissal did not bar Germain from attempting to replead them. The court granted Germain leave to amend, requiring any amended complaint to be filed within 14 days after entry of the opinion.