Mikhaylova v. Bloomingdales, Inc.

Background

Kristina Mikhaylova brought an eighteen-count action against Bloomingdale’s, Inc.; related Bloomingdale’s entities; Macy’s, Inc.; related Macy’s entities; and Christopher Castellani and Richard Law individually. The opinion refers to the company defendants collectively as Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s. Mikhaylova alleged pregnancy- and sex-based discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and interference with protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Her claims against the individual defendants arose only under the New York State and New York City laws.

Mikhaylova worked as a sales employee in Bloomingdale’s Chanel Handbag Department beginning around May 2016. The company had policies limiting purchases, prohibiting sales to known resellers, and restricting employee discounts. The record described several investigations involving suspicious transactions, including more than $67,000 in flagged orders, more than $90,000 in additional flagged orders, and about $65,000 in purchases connected to possible discount-policy violations and reselling. During a June 6, 2017 interview, Mikhaylova admitted that she shipped purchases out of state to avoid New York State taxes. Law suspended her that day and terminated her on June 16, 2017.

Mikhaylova became pregnant in early 2017 and requested intermittent leave related to her pregnancy. Her doctor’s certification described morning sickness and permitted time to address nausea and vomiting. The leave was approved, and the opinion states that Mikhaylova’s doctor did not request any further accommodation. Mikhaylova nevertheless argued that her pregnancy caused her suspension and termination and that she was treated differently from other employees, including Tyler Rose.

Claims Treated as Abandoned

The court held that Mikhaylova abandoned several claims because her opposition either did not address the defendants’ arguments or did not mention the claims. These were Cause Two, hostile work environment under Title VII; Cause Three, retaliation under Title VII; Cause Five, retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act; Cause Six, a Family and Medical Leave Act violation; Cause Seven, retaliation and interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act; Cause Nine, hostile work environment under the New York State Human Rights Law; Cause Ten, retaliation under that law; Cause Thirteen, retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law; and Cause Fifteen, interference with protected rights under that law.

Discrimination Claims

The court granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. To proceed under the applicable framework, Mikhaylova had to provide evidence that the circumstances of her suspension or termination permitted an inference of discrimination. The court concluded that she did not meet that initial burden.

The court relied on evidence that the defendants had investigated Mikhaylova’s suspicious transactions and possible violations of purchase and discount policies before her termination. It also relied on her admission about intentionally avoiding New York State taxes. The court rejected her comparison to Tyler Rose because Rose had been suspended for one suspicious purchase, did not admit purposeful tax evasion, and was not shown to have engaged in conduct as extensive as Mikhaylova’s. The court also rejected Mikhaylova’s reference to another employee’s lawsuit as unsupported and insufficiently connected to her own circumstances.

Because the New York State discrimination claim failed, the court also granted judgment on the related aiding-and-abetting claim. For the New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claim, the court concluded that Mikhaylova had not shown that the defendants treated her less well, at least partly for a discriminatory reason. It therefore granted summary judgment on that claim and on the related aiding-and-abetting and supervisor-liability claims.

Failure-to-Accommodate Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Mikhaylova’s failure-to-accommodate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court stated that a required part of these claims was showing that the employer refused to make an accommodation. Mikhaylova did not identify an accommodation that the defendants refused to provide. The court held that this failure was fatal to those claims.

Duplicative Claim and Service of Richard Law

The court dismissed Cause Seventeen, a New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claim, because it duplicated Cause Twelve. The court also noted that Mikhaylova had not served Richard Law with the amended complaint within the required time. The court therefore dismissed her claims against Law for failure to timely serve him. The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, that the claims against all defendants were dismissed, and that the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and dismiss all defendants from the action. Judge George B. Daniels signed the decision and order.