Crosby, Jr. v. Stew Leonard's Yonkers LLC

Background

Robert Crosby, Jr. sued Stew Leonard’s Yonkers LLC and Stew Leonard, Jr., alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law; race, gender, and religion discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law; and retaliation and interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Crosby alleged that he worked for Stew Leonard’s Yonkers beginning in 2001 and was terminated in September 2020 after developing lasting symptoms following a COVID-19 infection. He alleged that he complained about workplace conditions and discriminatory comments, was pressured to return to work while suffering from health problems, was expected to work while hospitalized, and was denied requested accommodations such as leave, working from home, or a modified schedule. He also alleged that the defendants terminated him after telling him that he had used all of his protected leave.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to present a legally plausible claim. They also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike paragraphs 46 through 59 as irrelevant and prejudicial.

Motion to Strike

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike. It struck paragraphs 46 through 48, which concerned Crosby’s identification of an Orthodox Jewish cemetery on the defendants’ property. The court found that those allegations had no connection to Crosby’s allegations about an antisemitic workplace and could prejudice the defendants.

The court denied the request to strike paragraphs 49 through 59, which concerned the defendants’ response to COVID-19 and the alleged workplace conditions during the pandemic. Although the court described the connection to Crosby’s claims as limited, it held that the allegations could bear on his disability-related claims and that the defendants had not shown sufficient prejudice.

Disability Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Crosby’s disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. It held that Crosby plausibly alleged a minimal inference of disability-based discriminatory intent through allegations that the defendants knew about his lasting COVID-19 symptoms, pressured him to return to work, expected him to work while on leave or in the hospital, denied his requested accommodations, and terminated him about two weeks after his second hospitalization.

The court also held that Crosby plausibly alleged that he could perform the essential functions of his job with or without an accommodation. Crosby alleged that he could work from home and gave an example of performing work by scheduling a police detail for the store. The court explained that whether attendance at the workplace was an essential job function and whether a requested accommodation was reasonable required a fact-specific inquiry that was not suitable for resolution at the complaint stage.

Title VII and New York Retaliation Claims

The court dismissed Crosby’s retaliation claims under Title VII and New York law. It held that the complaint did not sufficiently identify an adverse action caused by his complaints about discrimination. The alleged exclusion from management-wide emails beginning in 2011 was too remote from the termination and amounted to a minor annoyance rather than a sufficiently serious adverse action. The alleged threats of discipline and termination were too vague because Crosby did not provide concrete examples or dates. The court also held that the roughly six-month gap between his alleged March 2020 complaint and his termination was too long, without additional facts, to support a causal connection based only on timing.

Family and Medical Leave Act Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Crosby’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. Crosby alleged that he took approved leave through June 22, 2020 and was terminated about three months later. The court held that this timing, without additional facts showing retaliatory intent, did not plausibly connect the termination to his use of protected leave.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss the Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim. Crosby alleged that the defendants pressured him to return to work and failed to consider accommodations after his approved Family and Medical Leave Act period ended. He did not allege that he was required to work during that protected leave period or that the defendants denied a benefit to which he was entitled during that period.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The court’s conclusion states that Crosby’s disability-discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law survives and that all other claims are dismissed. Because this was the first adjudication of the claims on their merits, the court specified that the dismissals were without prejudice. It allowed Crosby 30 days from the date of the Opinion and Order to file an amended complaint if he had a good-faith basis to add facts addressing the identified deficiencies.

The court also granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Strike: paragraphs 46 through 48 were stricken, while the remaining paragraphs stood. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and scheduled a status conference for October 10, 2023.