Bethea v. Winfield Security Corporation

Background

Diamin Bethea sued her employer, Winfield Security Corporation, alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Winfield hired Bethea as a security guard in March 2022, and she began working at a mental-health shelter in August 2022. She alleged that she was assaulted by a patient and that a stabbing occurred at the shelter.

Bethea told a supervisor that she was pregnant and requested a transfer. She also asked that her two weekly days off be scheduled consecutively so she could attend medical appointments. She alleged that, about 24 to 32 hours after the second request, a dispatcher removed her from the work schedule, causing her to lose a day off and a workday. Supervisors later acknowledged that the dispatcher had acted improperly and restored her to the schedule. Bethea also alleged that her requests for a transfer and light work were not discussed.

Motion and Evidence Considered

Winfield moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court applies the same standard to that motion as to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true, the court asks whether the complaint plausibly alleges a right to relief.

The court refused to consider affidavits from Bethea’s supervisors for the truth of the statements in those affidavits. At this stage, the court could consider the complaint, materials attached to it, certain matters subject to judicial notice, and documents that Bethea knew about and relied on when bringing suit. The court also disregarded text messages attached to Bethea’s earlier request for emergency relief because they were exchanged after the complaint was filed and were not incorporated into or integral to the pleadings. The court declined to convert the motion into one for summary judgment because Bethea had not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery.

Pregnancy-Discrimination Claims

For the Title VII and New York State claims, the court explained that a plaintiff alleging failure to accommodate a pregnancy must plead facts showing that she was pregnant, sought an accommodation, was not accommodated, and that the employer accommodated other employees who were similar in their ability or inability to work.

The court found that Bethea adequately alleged the first three elements: she was pregnant, requested a transfer away from the shelter, and Winfield did not accommodate that request. But she did not allege that Winfield provided accommodations to other employees who were similar in their ability or inability to work. The court therefore concluded that she had not plausibly alleged pregnancy discrimination under Title VII or the New York State Human Rights Law. Winfield’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to claims one and two was GRANTED.

The court separately analyzed Bethea’s New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claim, which has more liberal standards in some respects. Even under that standard, however, Bethea did not allege facts showing that she was treated less well because of her pregnancy. The court therefore GRANTED Winfield’s motion as to claim three.

Retaliation Claims

The court applied the usual pleading requirements for retaliation: the plaintiff must allege protected activity, the employer’s awareness of that activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the activity and the action.

The court found that Bethea plausibly alleged protected activity because requesting a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy-related medical appointments can qualify as protected activity. Her allegations that she made the request to a supervisor and dispatcher also plausibly showed that Winfield knew about it.

The court further found that removing Bethea from the schedule could constitute an adverse employment action. Although she was restored to the schedule a day later, the court inferred at this stage that she lost at least one day of pay. The close timing—within approximately two days of her accommodation request—also plausibly supported causation. The court concluded that Bethea plausibly pleaded retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, so Winfield’s motion on those claims was DENIED. The court likewise DENIED the motion as to Bethea’s New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claim.

Disposition

The order states that Winfield’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED as to Bethea’s pregnancy-discrimination claims and DENIED as to her retaliation claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion.