Nofal v. IMCMV Times Square LLC

Background

Abdelhafiz Nofal sued his former employer, IMCMV Times Square LLC, doing business as Margaritaville Resort Times Square. He brought eleven claims under federal, New York State, and New York City law, alleging discrimination based on religion and disability, hostile work environment, and retaliation. After discovery ended, the defendant renewed its motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires judgment without a trial because no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

The opinion states that Nofal began working as a sous chef on May 31, 2021. He has diabetes, and he took approved medical leave for surgery that resulted in the amputation of one toe. After he returned, he was scheduled only for breakfast shifts three days a week, was required to clean the kitchen, was given less preparation time, and was told to “move, move, move” while limping. Nofal complained on September 3 that he felt discriminated against because he had taken leave. His employment ended on September 10 for alleged performance issues.

Nofal is Muslim and does not eat pork. On September 6, his supervisor told him he should try bacon and other pork products because restaurant cooks should try what they prepare. The opinion identifies this as the only negative comment about his religion during his employment. The defendant said Nofal was terminated for performance problems and insubordination, including allegedly refusing instructions and making comments to his supervisor. Nofal testified that the alleged incidents did not happen and that he was not insubordinate.

Religion-Based Claims

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the religion-based discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Under Title VII, the court held that the single comment about pork was not an adverse employment action and that Nofal offered insufficient evidence connecting the comment to his termination. Under the state and city laws, which the opinion describes as more protective of employees, the court held that the comment was offensive but amounted to no more than a petty slight under the circumstances and was not actionable.

The court also granted summary judgment on the religion-based hostile-work-environment claims. It reasoned that the single comment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive under the federal and state standards and did not show that Nofal was treated less well because of religion under the city standard.

The court granted summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim and on the religion-based portion of the city retaliation claim. It concluded that Nofal’s September 3 complaint could not have concerned the September 6 religion-related comment and that he offered no other evidence of religious discrimination. Therefore, the court found that he had not shown that he engaged in protected activity based on a reasonable, good-faith belief that he was opposing religious discrimination.

Disability-Based Claims

The court denied summary judgment on Nofal’s disability-discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nofal presented evidence that could support an inference of discrimination, including the close timing between his medical leave and termination and his supervisor’s alleged treatment of him differently after he returned. The defendant identified performance problems and insubordination as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination.

The court nevertheless found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the alleged insubordination occurred. Nofal testified that he did not refuse the instructions identified by the defendant and did not make the alleged threatening comments. Because a jury could credit his testimony, the court held that a jury could also find weaknesses in the defendant’s stated reasons for terminating him. The court therefore denied summary judgment on Claim Four.

The court also denied summary judgment on Claims Six and Nine to the extent they alleged disability discrimination under New York State and New York City law. It denied summary judgment on Claim Ten to the extent it alleged a disability-based hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court reasoned that the evidence sufficient to create a factual dispute about disability discrimination also created a factual dispute about whether Nofal was treated less well because of his disability.

Retaliation Claims

The court denied summary judgment on the disability-based retaliation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It found that Nofal’s September 3 complaint about discrimination for taking leave could qualify as protected activity, that the people to whom he complained knew about it, and that his September 10 termination was an adverse employment action. The seven-day timing supported an inference of causation. The factual dispute over whether the alleged insubordination occurred also supported a possible finding that the defendant’s stated reason was a pretext for retaliation.

The court likewise denied summary judgment on Claims Eight and Eleven, Nofal’s retaliation claims under the New York State and New York City laws, to the extent those claims were based on complaints of disability discrimination. The court granted summary judgment on Claim Three and on Claim Eleven to the extent it was based on complaints of religious discrimination.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment on the religion-based discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims. It denied summary judgment on the disability-based discrimination, disability-based hostile-work-environment, and disability-based retaliation claims. The court directed the parties to file a joint status letter by April 5, 2024, addressing mediation or trial availability, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 43.