Marshall v. Westchester Medical Center Health Network

Background

Kim Marshall sued Westchester Medical Center Health Network (WMCHN), Carlos Robinson, and Vanessa Mackay. She asserted claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). She alleged discrimination and retaliation related to her requests for FMLA leave and her arthritis-related disability.

Marshall alleged that she took approved FMLA leave from August 9 through October 4, 2021, for hip surgery. After returning, she received a more critical performance evaluation and was placed on a performance improvement plan in January 2022. She then requested another period of FMLA leave for a second hip surgery, scheduled to begin March 7, 2022. On March 1, 2022, after her leave request was approved, she was terminated. She alleged that defendants said the reason was “performance” but gave no explanation.

Legal Standard

Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states enough plausible facts to support a legal claim. For this motion, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true but did not have to accept legal conclusions or unsupported statements.

Rulings on Federal Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Marshall’s FMLA retaliation claim. It held that she plausibly alleged adverse employment actions, including the negative performance evaluation, the performance improvement plan, and her termination. The performance improvement plan also made her ineligible for a raise or promotion while the plan was in effect and for six months afterward. The court further held that the roughly one-month period between her February 2022 leave request and her termination was enough at the pleading stage to support a possible inference of retaliatory intent.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Marshall’s FMLA interference claim. Although she alleged that defendants terminated her less than a week before her approved leave was scheduled to begin, the court found that she did not allege that her FMLA leave itself was a negative factor in the termination decision. The court distinguished interference with leave rights from retaliation for exercising those rights.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Marshall’s ADA discrimination claim. The court found that her allegations of debilitating arthritis, chronic pain, limited range of motion, and difficulty dressing, walking, sleeping, and performing some work functions did not provide enough detail to plausibly show that her condition substantially limited a major life activity as required for an ADA disability claim.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Marshall’s ADA retaliation claim. It found that her termination was an adverse employment action and that the timing between her February 2022 leave request and March 2022 termination plausibly supported retaliatory intent at this stage.

Rulings on NYSHRL Claims

The court rejected defendants’ argument that Marshall’s NYSHRL claims should be dismissed for failure to file a notice of claim. It concluded that the applicable New York statute’s notice requirement applied to tort, personal-injury, or property-damage claims, not to Marshall’s discrimination and retaliation claims.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Marshall’s NYSHRL discrimination claim. Although the NYSHRL uses a broader definition of disability than the ADA, the court found that Marshall plausibly alleged a medically diagnosable impairment but did not plausibly allege a failure-to-accommodate claim. She alleged that Robinson and Mackay failed to engage in an interactive process, but she did not allege that defendants refused a reasonable accommodation. Her two FMLA leave requests were granted.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Marshall’s NYSHRL retaliation claim. The court held that her claim was based on retaliation for requesting leave, but that a request for a reasonable accommodation is not protected activity for purposes of an NYSHRL retaliation claim under the authority discussed in the opinion.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss Marshall’s NYSHRL aiding-and-abetting claim against Robinson and Mackay. The court explained that accessorial liability requires an underlying NYSHRL violation by the employer, and it had dismissed Marshall’s NYSHRL discrimination and retaliation claims against WMCHN.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed without prejudice Marshall’s ADA discrimination claim; FMLA interference claim; and NYSHRL discrimination, retaliation, and aiding-and-abetting claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss her FMLA retaliation and ADA retaliation claims.

The court granted Marshall leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 8, 2024. The court stated that if she did not file one by that deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 33.